Big Brother and The Ministry of Truth: Trump and The (Dishonest) Media

If you run across Eric Arthur Blair anytime soon, be sure to let him know that, though the dystopian society he described in his classic novel, 1984, has not been fully realized, we can finally say that Big Brother actually exists, has established an almost constant presence via television and social media, has used the demagoguery of fear and anger to establish a body of uncritical congregants who worship him with an almost messianic fervor---"Only I can fix it!"---and is doing all he can to establish himself as the Only/Ultimate Purveyor of Truth.

While you've got his ear, tell George Orwell---Eric Arthur Blair's pen name---that Big Brother's name is Donald Trump and that the address of his Ministry of Truth is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C.

THE DISHONEST DONALD

Donald Trump is fundamentally dishonest.

Fundamentally. Dishonest.

This is a man who spent five years claiming that Barack Obama was not a legitimate president because he had been born in Kenya, radicalized by Muslims and "planted" in Hawaii so that he could one day become president and, of course, destroy America as we know it by establishing a Muslim caliphate.

When asked to substantiate what we all knew was a lie, The Donald said "he had heard some people talking about it"---not a good answer for a man who, at last Friday's CPAC event, decried "anonymous sourcing." When people started laughing at him, he then claimed to have evidence "that I will produce at the appropriate time"---a "time" that, of course, never arrived.

When the president just got tired of hearing about it and produced the long-form copy of his Hawaii birth certificate, Trump claimed, sans any evidence, that it was a forgery. He went on to say that he had "investigators in Hawaii" and they were "coming up with some interesting information." We later learned that he never paid a cent to any investigators investigating anything---it was all a lie.

Five years of knowingly advancing a lie for which he knowingly had no substantiation. I have to give him an "A" for persistence, though it is an "A" for persistent lying.

As Leonard Pitts, Pulitzer-Prize winning columnist for the Miami Herald, recently wrote, "Granted, every president tells the politically expedient untruth. But this guy is different. He lies constantly. He lies about relatively unimportant things. He lies when the truth can easily be verified."

Indeed, the extent to which the new president lies is seen in the fact that, during his campaigns for the Republican nomination and then the presidency, fact-checking transitioned from a cottage industry to a major media enterprise. And nowhere was this more notable than in the rise of PolitiFact---a publication of The Tampa Times---from a site one occasionally visited to the most credible and trusted go-to source for accuracy per candidate statements and policies.

Which didn't work out so well for The Donald.

I mean, it cannot be good when a credible, trusted, Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking site essentially states that you told so many lies in a given year that it cannot pick just one as "Lie of the Year."

Which actually happened. Or, more appropriately put, it's a fact that it happened.

A close examination of Trump's egregious lying during 2015 led the PolitiFact editors to finally just throw up their hands, bundle together all of his statements that fell on their Mostly False/False/Pants-on-Fire spectrum and call the bundle "Lie of the Year for 2015."

As to the entire campaign, PolitiFact examined 365 statements of major significance made by Donald Trump. Of those statements, 71 were categorized as "Mostly False," 121 were categorized as "False," and 63 were categorized as "Pants-on-Fire." In other words, 69% of his significant statements during the recent election cycle fell along the Mostly False/False/Pants-on-Fire spectrum.

Last week alone, PolitiFact found that, of five significant statements made by Trump, two were "Mostly False," two were "False," and one was "Pants-on-Fire." That's right, none of them made it to the True/Mostly True/Half-True spectrum.

And The Donald's cathartic grievance rant---he called it a press conference---of this Thursday a week ago provided even more grist for the fact-checking mill. PolitiFact, in an act of kindness, only examined nine of Trump's significant statements. Two were rated as Full Flops, which represent statements completely at odds with earlier statements he had made. Five were rated on the Mostly False/False/Pants-on-Fire spectrum. And two made it to the True/Mostly True/Half-True spectrum.

Trump spent the 2016 campaign cycle giving demeaning and derogatory names to his opponents, and none was more brutalized by his early-adolescent name-calling than his presidential campaign opponent, Hillary Clinton. To the delight of his cult-like rally-goers, he referenced her alternately during rally rants or on his Twitter account as #LyingHillary and #CrookedHillary.

However, PolitiFact examined all of the statements of major significance made by the two candidates during their respective campaigns. And, when his propensity for telling falsehoods was set next to hers, The Donald's characterization of Secretary Clinton fell on its face.

We have already noted that, of 365 major statements made by Trump during the campaign, 69% were rated as False (121)/Mostly False (71)/Pants-on-Fire (63). In contrast, of 293 major statements made by Secretary Clinton during the campaign, only 76 fell along the False (29)/Mostly False (40)/Pants-on-Fire (7) spectrum. In other words, only 26% of her major statements---compared to 69% of Trump's statements---were rated on the False/Mostly False/Pants-on-Fire PolitiFact spectrum. Only John Kasich was rated by PolitiFact as being more honest---or, telling fewer lies---than Hillary Clinton during the 2016 cycle.

Of course, Kellyanne Conway and Sean Spicer would no doubt contest the work of even Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checkers by saying that The Donald was not lying but presenting what Ms. Conway hilariously/scarily called "alternative facts."

Alternative facts?

Is it factual that two plus two equals five? Of course, not.

Is it factual that black is white? Of course, not.

Is it factual that white is black? Of course, not.

Unless you believe in, uh, "alternative facts."

Someone please call George Orwell. His tortured soul might be eased a bit by the knowledge of just how prescient it was.