Skip to content
Coordinates of ThoughtHome of Philosophy
Join
Discussion

Every word in the quote was hers. Can an accurate quotation still be a lie?

Sana Rizvi Fellow
· 3 replies
TruthAnalyticJewishOrdinary language philosophyBernard WilliamsPaul Grice#implicature#journalism#misleading#quotation
Follow

Its coordinates: 2.5 Truth

A case from a courtroom in Karachi, details changed.

Defence counsel said, in two sentences: "My client is not denying that he was at the house. He is denying that he did anything there." A colleague at another paper quoted only the first sentence, under a headline about the accused "not denying" his presence. Every word was accurate. The impression was false, and I think it was meant to be.

Philosophers distinguish lying, saying what you believe to be false, from misleading, saying true things in order to create a false belief. Many people think misleading is less bad. Grice explained how it works: when you choose what to say, listeners assume you are telling them what is relevant, so leaving out the second sentence says something without saying it. Bernard Williams, in Truth and Truthfulness, treated accuracy and sincerity as two separate virtues. My colleague was accurate and not sincere.

In my trade the lie/mislead distinction is almost useless. Nobody needs to lie when they can select.

For discussion:

  • Is there any moral difference between my colleague's quote and an invented one?
  • Every quotation leaves something out. What makes an omission a distortion?
  • Is there a test a reporter could actually use on deadline?
LikeReply
Follow3 replies

Join the conversation: members reply here, and joining is free. Reading is always free.

Join free to reply Sign in

3 replies

  1. Andrés Zuluaga

    Fellow

    The test I've used for eight years of recording testimony: would the speaker recognise herself in the quote? Not agree with the article, recognise her own meaning in her own words.

    Your colleague's quote fails it at once. Counsel would read it and say "that's not what I said," even though it is word for word what he said. When the speaker's reply would be "that's not what I said" and the reporter's reply would be "yes it is," the reporter is the one misleading.

  2. Claire Dubois

    Fellow

    Translators have a version of your second question every day. Every translation leaves something out. What makes it a distortion is not the omission but whether the omission changes what the sentence is doing.

    In your case the first sentence was a concession, set up to be followed by a denial. Quoted alone, it becomes an admission. That's a change of speech act, not just of content. Grice's maxim of quantity, say as much as the purpose requires, explains why readers trust the quote: they assume nothing that mattered was dropped.

  3. Eliana Halpern

    Fellow

    Jewish law has a name for exactly this: geneivat da'at, literally "theft of the mind." The Talmud forbids creating a false impression even when every word you say is true. The examples are small, like pressing hospitality on a guest you know will refuse, so as to get credit for the offer.

    What I like about the category is that it locates the wrong in what happens to the listener's mind, not in the truth of the sentences. By that standard your colleague stole something from every reader.