Read other letters about this article

• Saturday, October 4, 2008 02:57 PM

  kovie

  Kitt

  I'm not sure that they're technically "lying". To lie, you have to know, or at least have good reason to suspect, that what you're saying is untrue.

  -- kovie

  Yes, I know and agree and also agree with the premise of the rest of your post. But the guy I used as an example was lying. I'd bet the ranch on it. He articulated his points for one thing. He wasn't stumbling around like a lot of them do. He was a regular preacher type. One of those who sounds like he is the voice of reason and authority. There is no way that he didn't know that Raines had and has nothing to do with Obama's campaign.

  Which brings up another part of the issue that infuriates and frustrates me. I watched the C-Span host stare blankly into the camera as that guy said that about Raines. I don't expect the host or hostess to call out each and every misstatement, but one as blatantly wrong and easily proven so as that one should have been called out. That would not only correct the record but it would put everything else that the caller had claimed to be fact come into question. And that kind of correction could be repeated much more often than it is. That would have the effect of both setting the record straight and of reducing the number of dishonest callers. Some of them would think twice about being shown for the liars that they are in the middle of their talking-points rant.

  —Kitt Read Kitt's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel