Democracy depends upon telling the truth

I'm disappointed in the column by Al Lehmann in the Nov. 14, 2024 issue of The Terrace Standard, "A study in contrasts: Hard to believe Trump election". And I'm disappointed that The Terrace Standard published it, given the content of the message. There should be some level of shame for publishing lies when it is extremely easy to do some fact checking.
The level of intellectual dishonesty is palpable in the short opinion piece. But I don't actually blame Mr. Lehmann initially anyway. It depends on how he sources his facts from which he formulates his opinion.
I noticed a phenomenon first in 2016 during Trump's first run for political office, but I paid little attention at the time. Then the COVID restrictions and lockdowns came, and I saw how bad the phenomenon really is. I have fallen victim to the logical fallacy called the "appeal to authority" many times in the past, but now that I can think for myself I see it happening to everyone around me, and it scares me.

Parents, grandparents, siblings, and friends; many of them haven't taken the time to properly evaluate evidence from honest, truthful sources before formulating their opinion. Instead when I speak with them about something we disagree on, they often just end up regurgitating what the person on the TV said. Because the TV man is "the news, and they wouldn't lie or obfuscate, they're the honest brokers of truth.

Isn't it weird that many TV news stations say similar things, or even the exact same phrase verbatim? As if to send a unified message to the masses? Isn't it even weirder when they lie about what someone said, when you the viewer can go to YouTube and watch the full uncut segment and see the truth?
Much of what Mr. Lehmann mentioned in his opinion is a half-truth at best, hearsay or lies at worst. The paragraph I take most issue with is when he says, as a statement of fact, that "Trump had a career of a succession of frauds and crimes, including rape" and "later he supported an attempted coup."

It's a vague statement that points to one specific event (the so-called coup) so it can encompass many (if not all) of the false allegations that Trump had to endure during the election campaign. The simplest rebuttal to the so-called-coup on January 6, 2021 is this. If it was determined to fit the legal definition of an insurrection or coup d'etat, then why in the four years of office that Biden and Harris had did they not prosecute Trump?

Surely in the digital age, there is enough evidence that can be collected. If you want to see what an actual modern day coup (or fait accompli) looks like, I refer you to the forced departure of Biden and the selection of Kamala Harris as the presidential nominee for the Democrat Party without having won a single primary vote.

Mr. Lehmann is in disbelief that 76 million people voted for Trump, giving him 312 electoral college votes, vs Harris getting 73 million votes and 226 electoral college votes. Clearly those 76 million, or at least a large proportion of them, have seen the dishonesty in news reporting.

They have seen the hate and fear mongering by political commentators and talk show hosts. They're tired of listening to Trump be called Hitler over and over, and that they're Nazis for supporting him. There's a sea change happening in how we all digest news and I believe it's for the better that large corporate news organizations face an ultimatum, truth in reporting or failure.

I won't bother rebutting his half-truths about Harris, they are committed in a positive direction which is harmful to truth telling, but not anywhere near as damaging or harmful as lies in the negative direction against someone.

The one statement of Mr. Lehmann's I will opine on is how "Harris is well-spoken [and] able to generate a well-organized rhetorical argument uncontaminated by rancour or bombast." I ask the reader this, as to ask the question is to answer the question; how many multi-hour interviews has Harris been on where she is seen speaking competently without using grade 6 level filler language, or filibustering to avoid answering a question?
A pillar of our liberal western society and the system of justice that allows us to defend ourselves, is that we must assume innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. Without this core tenet, we can accuse, incarcerate, and destroy the lives of our fellow citizens with zero evidence. Therefore, I would like to see the evidence and conviction of the crimes that Lehman accused Trump of.

I'm not a fan of Trump's political personality, and not a fan of some of his previous policies in office, but this go around he is in fact on the path to making much better policy decisions and he's already hiring amazing people to advise him and serve in his cabinet.

I don't want this response to be seen as a defence of Trump, because I'm not writing it with that intent. This is a defence of the truth, and I will defend anyone who gets slandered with lies, friend or foe. Because in our western liberal democracy, truth and honesty of thought must prevail, else we are doomed to fail.