Tim Pool Says Journalists Should Say Elizabeth Warren is "Ignorant or Lying." I Disagree.

During my recent appearance on The Tim Pool Show to discuss media bias, Tim (Lean Right) argued Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is either “ignorant or lying” when she proposes a wealth tax (which would tax an individual’s net worth, ie, the value of their assets, minus debts), and that objective journalism would state this as fact. He says it would be biased for a journalist not to point out that she is either ignorant or lying.

I argue such an assertion falls outside the realm of objective journalism; here’s why.

Our disagreement is not necessarily about logic, but about what journalism ought to assert.

Consider if you saw either of the following statements in a journalistic piece:

"The senator has proposed a tax on the wealthiest Americans, which would tax their assets. The senator is lying about the tax’s feasibility."

versus:

"The senator has proposed a tax on the wealthiest Americans, which would tax their assets. Supporters argue the law would address the concentration of wealth and power within a relatively small group of families and raise revenues; critics argue such a tax contains liquidity problems, high administrative costs, and unconstitutional uncertainty."

The first is a judgement on the politician’s character, and the second gives facts and different perspectives only. From the factual foundation and knowledge of supporters and critics’ views, the reader can conclude whether the politician is ignorant or lying, without the journalist outright telling them so.

In other words, the first is crafted with bias; the second is crafted as unbiased journalism.

On the show, Tim argues that saying Warren is ignorant or lying falls in the realm of fact. I argue it falls in the realm of analysis and commentary. By calling Warren “ignorant,” a journalist would be judging her knowledge and competence, thus making an inference on her character. If this sentence appeared in a news piece, AllSides panelists would flag it as analysis presented as fact.

RELATED: 16 Types of Media Bias

What about saying Warren is “lying”? This asserts she has an intent to deceive, that she knows something but is willfully stating the opposite. If a journalist wrote this, AllSides would likely flag this as bias by mindreading. 

Tim asserts that a journalist’s only option is to omit information in order to avoid appearing biased on this issue. He says he saw a comedian state that Musk is so rich, he should just give away billions. Tim then states: 

“It’s illegal for Elon Musk to give away his shares of Space X. He’d be violating SEC laws. How can you as a news reporter not inform the people that this policy from the Democrats is literally, legally and mathematically impossible?” Tim asks. “You’d be biased for doing so, even though what you’re saying is true. The only thing you could do is lie, omit information so that you appear not biased to one side.”

But there is a way for a journalist to explain this in a neutral manner without being accused of bias. Bias is primarily revealed in how a piece is crafted.

It is fine for a commentator to infer motives or competence from the available evidence, but a straight news reporter typically aims to stop at what can be directly observed, share multiple perspectives/opinions, and let readers draw higher-level conclusions, inferences, or judgements for themselves.

Tim is correct in pointing out implementation complexities with a wealth tax. It is easy for someone to say, "Elon has $400 billion. Just tax him." But wealth is not necessarily equivalent to liquid cash. A business owner can't simply convert their ownership into cash on demand as if it's sitting in a bank account. A reporter can explain this part of the conversation around wealth tax without making statements about the politician’s competence or character.

In the same clip, Tim even admits as much — that his analysis of Warren in the context of her proposal is his own opinion:

“Elizabeth Warren knows full well a wealth tax is impossible based on how she’s describing it,” he said. “I do not believe it is reasonable to conclude that for someone in her position with her knowledge of financial systems, FEC, SEC, everything she’s been involved in, I do not think it is reasonable for a person in her position to be ignorant to the fact that Elon Musk is contractually and legally barred from selling his shares. Which would mean if you tried to tax those shares, there is literally nothing he can do. There’s no legal mechanism for that to exist. She knows this…now, that’s me saying my opinion on the matter.”

The practice of journalism, at its core, is about presenting facts and letting the reader draw conclusions. Journalism does not assert interpretations for the reader. Once a journalist starts doing so, they enter the realm of analysis and commentary — and yes, that will naturally show bias, because bias by definition is a partiality or inclination. 

Entire whitepapers have been written on the topic of a wealth tax — its feasibility and hurdles to implementation. Tim is not wrong to point this out. Where he goes out of bounds is by claiming a journalist should call Warren “ignorant or lying.” Our back and forth is fundamentally about how a journalist can report on such a proposal without appearing to align with one side or the other or enter into the realm of bias.

Some assertions belong in a piece of journalism, while others are out of bounds for someone in that societal role. As I point out on the full show, trust in news has completely tanked in America because journalists constantly want to lead you to feel a certain way about a politician, policy or proposal, rather than just giving you both sides and letting you decide for yourself.

Julie Mastrine is the Director of Communications and Bias Ratings at AllSides. She has a Lean Right bias.

This piece was reviewed by Emily Allen, Education Experience Manager & News Editor (Left bias).