As sensitive as we are to the misinformation caused by fake news, we are at the same time extremely tolerant of the systematic publication of white lies intended to make us agree with the political agenda of those who fabricated them and the media outlet where they are published. I think of all these studies, investigations, interviews, and reports used to create a biased representation of reality to make it more complacent and less conflictive, or to make it more threatening and provoke a more forceful response in favor of how we would like it to be.
I am speaking, then, of these reports where all the interviewees share the same opinion. Or of the pseudo-academic research that, sponsored by those who live and always favoring their interests, softens the conflictive reality, be it that of migration processes, certain forms of discrimination, or, among others, the uncivil behavior of certain groups. Or, on the contrary, I have in mind those who, with an otherwise respectable militancy and activism, but poorly suited to rigorous reporting ethics, exaggerate the risks of both certain human activities and natural phenomena to gain support for their cause.
A white lie is one that is supposedly told with good intentions to avoid or prevent harm. Plato defended what he called the "noble lie" in the service of those governed to ensure control of the citizenry and social harmony. With the small detail, of course, that it is his own Republic Lying was only permitted to rulers, who, you see, should be philosophers. On the other hand, it would be completely prohibited for all other individuals. The concept is certainly ambivalent. Carme Junyent said that, in general, white lies seemed truly perverse to her, and that if we didn't dare to tell the truth, it was best to remain silent. Because it's difficult to discern where the altruistic and well-intentioned nature of a white lie begins, and at what point it transforms into a desire to deceive and manipulate in favor of one's own interests.
However, I am interested in pointing out the fact that white lies are so easily resorted to by all kinds of organizations, and that journalism bends—naively or complicitly—with such docility. And I'll leave aside malicious lies, that is, those that seek to dissolve basic social virtues, whether by provoking division, hatred, or violence, unfairly damaging the reputation of individuals and institutions, attacking certain groups, whether vulnerable or not, or with the intention of weakening democratic coexistence. But what do we do with lies conceived and spread in the service of cohesion, solidarity, good coexistence, of those supposedly weaker, or of democratic institutions? In the latter case, should they be tolerated, and is it necessary to help spread them for the general good of social and political life?
The main problem when answering the question is the difficulty of discerning three things. First, whether we only consider white lies those that favor our own confirmation bias, that is, those that reinforce our own ideological prejudices, or whether it is also necessary to tolerate the lies of our adversaries, granting them the same moral right to exist. Second, the question is whether the person who lies does so intentionally, or whether when the lie proves us right, we lower all critical caution because of confirmation bias.
But thirdly, it's also important to know whether the outcome of a white lie actually benefits the cause it champions. For example, if it aims to mask the conflicts of a certain group—whether they are immigrants who have left care or those found in the classrooms of many secondary schools—will the fact that this dissimulation contradicts everyday experience disprove negative prejudices or further increase ignorance? Or, if an immediate adverse weather cycle is used to raise awareness of an indisputable but long-term climate change, what consequences will this have on the credibility of the latter when the former changes?
Pere Quart, in the poem Litanies, already warned us against all kinds of lies. Also against "half-truths" and those that are supposedly technical and scientific: "numbers that become machines / and machines that tell / like mad legends." And finally, let me quote Gramsci to remind us that, ultimately, what is revolutionary is telling the truth.
