We need truth more than ever. How to find it amid political lies and AI slop.

“Just gimme some truth,” John Lennon sang decades ago. “All I want is the truth.”

That simple desire seems harder than ever to fulfill.

A few days ago, for instance, Trump aide Stephen Miller posted a lie clearly meant to damage the campaign of James Talarico, the Democrat who’s running for Senate in Texas. His opponent is ultra-right-wing Ken Paxton. That’s Trump’s choice, despite all the scandals and corruption charges that should be disqualifying for Paxton.

Here’s what Miller posted on X: The Democratic Party had “made history in Texas by nominating their first transgender senate candidate.” No truth to it. But given the hatred that comes the way of trans people, it was well calculated, in the worst possible way.

Soon, that lie was picked up all around, boosted by right-wing commentators, and seen by millions of people.

An official Democratic social media account fired back with a profanity, calling Miller ugly and telling him to shut up, and that set off a round of stories about the fracas, which probably served Trump’s purposes to some extent because they re-surfaced Talarico’s 2021 comment that “God is non-binary” — something that may not play all that well in Texas. (Talarico, a state legislator, is a 37-year-old Presbyterian seminarian, by the way; he’s also not a vegan, although that’s another lie that’s being circulated by the opposition eager to portray him as “not our kind of guy” to meat-eating Texans.)

Were some Texas voters influenced against Talarico by Miller’s lie? Probably. The anti-trans prejudice runs horrifyingly deep, as we saw in the ads against Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential campaign.

Efforts to smear have always been a part of political campaigns, but these days, it’s harder to know what’s true. After all, the liar-in-chief in the White House provides leadership on this issue.

In addition, mainstream news organizations seem less interested now in documenting and challenging those lies. Glenn Kessler, who tracked the more than 30,000 Trump lies and false statements in Trump’s first term, took a buyout from the Washington Post — and despite his efforts to create a succession plan there, the Post hasn’t replaced him in the official role of Fact Checker.

Daniel Dale is still doing his excellent work at CNN, but in recent months, they have rarely put him on the air. That may not be for any nefarious purpose, just the normal flow of news, but it’s nonetheless the case that (as of this writing on June 1), he hasn’t been on the air since mid-March.

Dale continues to crank out smart written fact checks. For example, he offered one of Trump’s false claims at a Cabinet meeting last week. Trump stated about Iran’s military capabilities that “their navy is gone, their air force is gone, everything’s gone.” Dale notes that CNN’s reporting from April indicated that Iran’s military is reconstituting fast and that half of its missile launchers were still intact. Dale also took on Trump’s claims about prescription drug prices: “We have drugs down 400, 500, 600 percent.” Dale notes that, for starters, this is mathematically impossible. Read the whole piece (and others like it) on the website.

But somehow the lies outpace the truth every time, as in this line often attributed to Mark Twain: “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

And then there’s AI, and all the truth-related problems that come with it.

A few weeks ago, I got a pitch from the publisher of a new book, “The Future of Truth: How AI Reshapes Reality.” It had already gotten a lot of attention and its premise looked interesting enough that I thought of featuring an interview with the author here. My idea was that Abraham Kenmore, who produces this newsletter each week, could do a Q&A interview with Steven Rosenbaum for publication here — and that I would write an introduction crediting Abe for the interview itself. (Abe is a fine journalist in his own right, and my former teaching assistant at Duke University.)

We were in the midst of arranging this when the New York Times broke a troubling story: “Book on Truth in the Age of A.I. Contains Quotes Made Up by A.I.” (Here’s a gift link.) Since then, the news about the book has only worsened. Wired magazine retracted its published excerpt this past weekend.

But the even-more-twisted part came after Abe told the book representative that we were no longer going to do the author interview because of the fabricated quotes.

Here’s what Richard Kaemer, chief executive of RLM public relations, wrote back, arguing with our decisions: “They were quotes hallucinated from AI. Not fabricated.” This, the book’s representatives seemed to suggest, just made the author’s premise more interesting and perhaps we’d like to discuss or debate these points with the author. We declined.

Readers, I probably don’t need to convince any of you that truth is harder to find — or even identify — than ever before.

But what can we do about it? Here’s what Kessler told me on Monday, and I agree:

“People need to rely on verified sources of information and be willing to pay for it.” I’ve believed for a long time that a good litmus test of a respectable news organization is whether it regularly publishes corrections of its own (inevitable) mistakes. Places like the New York Times, the Guardian, the Washington Post, CNN and others do that. If media organizations don’t correct their mistakes, I wouldn’t be inclined to give them my subscription dollars. Similarly, if they have no clear policy on AI use, I’d tend to steer clear. You can search a news organization’s ethics code or its standards and practices to find out.

Here are some other tips for truth seekers in an age of lies:

• Follow and read fact-check outlets or individuals with a track record of seeking out the truth on contested claims. Among these are Politifact, Factcheck.org and Lead Stories. Kessler’s Substack and Dale’s CNN pieces are good sources, too.
• Before you believe — and definitely before you share — check it out. Something as simple as a (non-AI) Google search may help, since the accuracy of a statement may have been addressed by somebody or you may be able to find confirmation of it from a trusted source.
• Slow down! When it comes to spreading misinformation, speed kills. I found myself doing this very recently when I started seeing stories about Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner’s sexting infidelity. Was this just political scuttlebutt, or was it based in reality? It turned out to be the latter.
• When in doubt, ask out loud. By this, I mean inquire in your own circle or on social media. Somebody may have knowledge or links to good information. It’s far better to risk looking un-savvy rather than flat-out wrong.
• Be skeptical of anything Donald Trump says. This may seem obvious but he is the president and, though we should know better by now, his word is still taken (too) seriously because of that. Lies, exaggerations, flights of fancy … he’s got them all covered.

Readers, what’s your experience of all of this? Do you have any suggestions or tips that might be useful to us all? Please respond in the comments.

Leave a comment

Some suggested reading on the topics we all care about:

My Guardian colleague Jeremy Barr wrote Monday that the well-respected 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley met with CBS brass and called out editor Bari Weiss: “She’s murdering 60 Minutes … She does not love this place. She was brought in to kill it and is doing exactly that.” It was a shocking moment, and Pelley is a truth-teller.

Here’s Dick Tofel’s piece on Substack about the enduring importance of the New York Times. I’d love to hear your reaction.

Here’s Frank Bruni on the midterm elections and Trump’s fears. (gift link)

And here’s Parker Molloy’s analysis of the tragic changes at CBS News and 60 Minutes. It was a rough week there, and a discouraging one for those who care about the relationship between fearless journalism and American democracy.

Thank you very much for your support, your interest and your involvement at this critical time for American democracy.

This newsletter’s paywall remains down so all can read and comment. I deeply appreciate your subscriptions, whether paid or unpaid. If you can support this effort at $50 a year, you’ll help to keep it going for all. Here’s why one reader recently became a paid subscriber.

My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US. I’ve also written two books, taught journalism ethics, and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.

The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.

What I ask of you: Shortly after Trump’s election in November of 2024, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!

Leave a comment

—