Is a lie always a lie? I recently heard the phrase “acceptable misguidance,” in the context of debate, discussion, and rhetoric. I thought this was a very polite term for “lies” but the person arguing for “acceptable misguidance” was making the case that media uses it, specifically in the case of reporting on a story where the producer, owner, or outlet has a particular bias – political or otherwise. What is acceptable misguidance, and does it have a place in enlightened discourse?

Law enforcement is entitled to “lie” in order to have an alleged perpetrator confess to a crime. Lie is a broad term, but, in fact, they can lie as long as it is not construed as coercion. An excellent article about limits on police coercion discusses if there are limits and what those limits, in a psychological context might be. This also begs the question, what about the jurors or judges who have to determine what is coercion and what is just a tactic to elicit a truthful statement from those being interrogated. So, in the context of law enforcement, “acceptable misguidance” is in fact, acceptable.

What is interesting is how polarizing a lie versus “acceptable misguidance” is now perceived in the media. However, lies in the media, and media lying are not a 21st century creation. In the founding of the United States, both “sides” took to printed handbills, papers, and books to bolster their base and promote their politics. In the latter part of the 19th century, Yellow Journalism, mainly the papers of Hearst and Pulitzer (Yes, that Pulitzer), was really the beginning of a frenzy of media hype. While the cause of the sensational headlines was a circulation war between the two moguls, it laid the groundwork for stretching the truth in media. This has not slowed down; several media outlets have stated that they have the ‘right to lie’ as guaranteed by the first amendment. It seems that courts agree and regularly do not convict liars on a regular basis. The onus is on the listener or reader to suss out the facts. It doesn’t matter what voice they are fighting to have heard, they can and do lie on a regular basis. It’s up to us to figure it out. Is this acceptable?

It goes without saying that our politicians lie on a regular basis. We have seen video or written “proof” of the lie, and it still lives on. Whether they see what they are saying as truth, or what someone else is saying as a lie, it does not bear repeating here that politicians words require a vast amount of vetting to make sure we get the “whole” picture. To answer the earlier question, does this have a place in enlightened discourse? Perhaps, if the lines are clearly drawn and the debates and discourse have a philosophical bent. Perhaps, if we’re discussing the larger ideas of life and not the character of another. Then again, perhaps not. Can we envision a world where politicians and their media outlets did not lie? Could we all “take” it?

Law enforcement. politicians. media…we are surrounded by acceptable misguidance. We can choose to listen or not, and we can choose to believe or be suspicious. Some find it easier to simply believe, and some find it exhausting to be suspicious all the time.

Why does this matter to the Freemason? It seems like a good deal, especially in the search for Truth. Do Freemasons lie? Most assuredly. Freemasons are human after all, and even a white lie to save the feelings of a friend happens. Yet, the search for Truth compels Freemasons to seek for more depth of the story, less human nature and more divine nature. If we choose to listen to the human story, we need to spend time to figure out the truth from the acceptable misguidance, and if we look even deeper, perhaps we can actually see the Truth of what is being said. In this way, perhaps acceptable misguidance is a test of our ability to seek and find that which is lost. Perhaps it is a reminder that we should question everything until we find the Truth inside.