site banner
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There's also the tactic by media supporters of having different standards for literal truth.

"We didn't literally mean there's absoluitely no scientific evidence for it. We meant that there's no good scientific evidence that has been published in Nature."

Of course, this is a one way ratchet. If the media said X, but means Y, and X is false, we're supposed to ignore the literal falsity of X. But if Y is false, we're supposed to do the opposite and ignore the falsity, taking X literally instead.