The lie by innuendo

How can you tell a falsehood without telling a lie? Its simple, really, You paint a picture that is factually correct but tells a false story. You lie by innuendo. Then you can defend your own statements and self righteously assert that the problem is in the perception and not the telling.

Larry Obhof describes one such case in Save Phil (No Left Turns 05ap16)

As for the former concerns, although the cartoon generally avoids making rebuttable factual assertions, the clear implications are that the Founders instituted the filibuster and that it is central to the separation of powers. Both of these implications are false. First, the filibuster is not in the Constitution and was not used for decades following the founding of the country. In fact, the current rule is only a few decades old. Second, the filibuster has hardly “worked pretty well,” unless, like Senator Byrd, one considers talking for 14 hours in order to block civil rights legislation to be a public good. Contrary to current comparisons to “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” the filibuster has a less-than-honorable history and, as law professor Jonathan Turley recently noted in USA today, it “is unabashedly and undeniably anti-democratic.”

This particular technique is closely related to the ‘freedom of speech’ or ‘difference of opinion’ rationalizations for arguing with falsehoods. You can see the AARP attack on Social Security reform as another example.

Comments are closed.