One of the big discussions floating around the Internet for the past couple of days has come from the New York Times‘ public editor Arthur Brisbane’s recent column, “Should the Times Be a Truth Vigilante?,” which asks to what extent journalists should just come out and call a liar a liar in their stories. Unsurprisingly, most commentary has mocked Brisbane for asking this, believing it indicates a failing of modern journalism and basic morality that a relatively big-name journalist like Brisbane cannot handle the truth. I guess it is similar to the old Bush-43 spokesman (Karl Rove?) who once talked about “reality-based communities,” saying that the world no longer worked that way and we now create our own realities.

I think people who bash Brisbane are often missing the bigger point. Sure, there are times when public figures say things that are blatantly, obviously false, and they should be called to account But often it is not about fact vs. fiction, but more about “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” — “Who guards the guardians?” (or, if you are a nerd like me, “Who watches the Watchmen?”).

As someone who has held more than a few minority opinions in my lifetime (as we all do, I think), I know what it feels like to have an opinion dismissed, simply for being odd or unconventional. And it seems to me that for every clear-cut case of someone lying or offering a self-serving theory to advance themselves, there are many more murky incidents that are not so clear. Sure, you can tell fact from fiction, and you know when something is grey and nuanced. But do you trust the people you work with and others to make the same distinctions so well?

Let’s face it, when people get together, they often get a lot more opinionated and dumber then they are as individuals. People are not all above average. Many of us are dumb — usually dumber in some areas than others, but sometimes just all-round dumb. And a few special people are able to succeed in their professions despite a surplus of dumbness.  Laws and other regulations  are always enforced by dumb people, or at least by the collective dumbness humanity repeatedly exhibits when it acts in groups.

Which is why I would be very hesitant for journalists to just start add “he lied” to their stories. There is just way too much room for abuse in that sort of policy. Most of the time it is better to present the facts and let readers make up their own minds. People may be dumb, but the average person is not, and a well-written story should point toward the truth naturally. Perhaps what people should be decrying is less the post-modern disintegration of truth and more the decline of good writing (and critical reading skills, but that’s a rant for another time).