The media, adopting a "shocked, shocked" morality, could not fathom how being factually wrong was not an absolute ending in itself. How could this not utterly shame him? How could his staff defend him? The facts were the facts! Defying them, or ignoring them, or subverting them, made you a liar-intending to deceive, bearing false witness. {A minor journalism controversy broke out about whether
The media expressed incredulity over the notion that being factually incorrect did not automatically discredit an individual. This attitude raised questions about how someone could remain unashamed despite clear inaccuracies and how others might justify defending such a person. The prevailing belief was that factual integrity was paramount, and any deviation from it was tantamount to deliberate deception.
A minor controversy among journalists emerged concerning Michael Wolff’s book "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House." Critics were concerned about the implications of the book’s content, especially in light of the broader discussion about truthfulness in reporting and the moral obligations of those involved in journalism.
