What is a lie, anyway?

A friend of mine posted a story from a well known rag, the headline was VERY deceptive.  He handled it very gracefully and I think I learned from his example, so that's cool, but it got me thinking on a tangent.

What is a lie?  Well, the dictionary says it's an intransitive verb "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive."  

That seems pretty accurate.  I mean we... most of us?  ... people make false statements all the time not realizing they're wrong.  Generally getting told you're wrong is one of the most annoying things, too, so I guess that's incentive to be wrong less, but it's not a lie to be wrong.  That's just... wrong.

It gets deeper though.  So someone's wrong, they get told they're wrong by someone who does not have authority in their eyes.  They don't see it that way, so now they dig in.  Well shit?  Now they're wrong and fortified.  Still not a lie.

OK so lets back out of that hole realizing we have to approach wrong with care so as not to accidentally drive the stake so deep we can't get it out.

How about intentional deception?  The example was sort of a manipulation.  Someone took a picture of a truck full of USPS mailboxes and a worker pulling one off the road.  The headline was "USPS seen pulling mailboxes off street ahead of election".  Well, it's not factually wrong, but it is a statement with the intent to deceive.  The actuality was the boxes were being removed for repair or replacement, or being moved because of disuse and poor placement.  The action had absolutely nothing to do with the coming election.

So... Is that a lie?  There is an election coming? Yes.  The mailboxes are being removed?  Yes.  Is there an untruth in combining those two statements? .... Tricky isn't it?  I suggest we have to go farther than the dictionary definition, or we wind up with slimy tactics like this example.  The statement is intentionally deceptive, making people believe that the mailboxes are being removed BECAUSE of the election, while not actually saying so.  It's a correlation without causation.  It's a bit like saying "Ice cream companies enjoy record profits as infant mortality soars." ... It's summer.  Ice cream sales rise in the summer.  It's also hot.  Infant mortality is higher in the summer.  Are the two related in any way?  Only by the fact that it's summer.  The implied correlation is a lie.  I believe the academic term here is that this is a "False cause fallacy".  In my opinion, that qualifies as a lie on the part of the author.

So, how much effort is due diligence?  I originally posted this article on Facebook.  Most of us go there to read about our friends' lives while posting about ours, we get worked up about silly things and the absolute last thing we go there for (most of us) is to do anything that in any way resembles WORK.  ... Except you, social media professionals, you know who you are.  ... So you're scrolling down on Facebook, like 'ya do, you see a headline that makes you think about a topic you care about.  Sounds about right, click share so your friends can see it and move on?  What if that headline turns out to be a lie?

No.  You are not a liar.  You are in an awkward situation, because you posted a wrong thing.  Hopefully one of your friends will gently point out that the headline is a deception... see that paragraph above where I said I was backing out of that because it's awkward.  Either they make it worse, or they help you spot the error and you either delete the post or make an editorial note or something.  Hopefully they make it better. 

There's debate on what is correct (delete or edit), but either works for me, I won't judge.  We all make mistakes.

You can insulate yourself a little bit by doing a quick google search, but again... you're not there to work.  It's a judgement call you have to make for yourself, and none of us get it right 100% of the time.  And my friends?  Some of them come out with knives... though to be honest if someone stabs me too many times for any reason I'm eventually going to think maybe they're not a friend.

I'm not really going to go into what happens when you're absolutely right and your friend thinks they're an expert on the topic they think you're wrong about.  That's even less pleasant than being called out for being wrong.

Moving on!  Now instead, you're an author writing an article for some rag that needs clicks to survive.  You know there's a hot button issue, people are upset about the evil ice cream CEOs making too much money, and who doesn't care about keeping babies from dying?  No not you.  Sociopath.  The rest of us care and you know it.  So you find some incriminating photo of a well known CEO giving ice cream to an unsuspecting baby and drop the aforementioned headliner, boom instant clickbait... and a lie.  Your editor (if you even have one) loves it and gives it the green light for publishing.  Congratulations, you're in print and your rag's fact checkers and editorial staff have been deemed completely devoid of moral fortitude.

So what about satire?  Well... that leans heavily on the intent side of the definition of a lie.  Fiction is generally a story that is not factual, but nobody goes and reads Asimov thinking "wow what a liar".  Satire isn't intended to deceive - at least not indefinitely.  It's intended to make a point, usually by ad absurdum -- that is, taking a concept to its absolutely most absurd conclusion, or at least entertain those of a certain position by making the opposing position look even more stupid than usual.  That's not a lie, though it may contain comedic untruth.

Okay, so what about magic?  This one's hard.  In performing magic, you really do literally lie to people.  Remember, a lie is the communication of a falsehood with intent to deceive.  Magic is foundationally an intentional deception for the purposes of entertainment.  So... yes.  Magic is a lie.  Sorry little Jimmy, lets just not talk about Santa Claus okay?  Performing magic is sort of grey.  The assumption is the audience will appreciate having been brought into the deception because they are willing to be entertained, and we all should agree whatever happens between individuals qualified to consent should be fair and not morally questioned.  So, given that the audience is presumably allowed to consent, then ... well it's still a lie, but we're not going to get upset about it.

It's also fair to note that almost every religion represented within the cultures of mankind, being a liar is considered among the things forbidden for one person to do to another.  Even if you are not a religious person, it is important to know the world's greatest philosophers frown greatly on deception.

So... I guess tl'dr, don't read magazines (or online 'news' agencies) that are willing to lie for their cause.  It's noble to DIE for your cause, it is the opposite of noble to LIE for it.  Remember Revelations 21:8.