[cyorir]

> I challenge you to find a single journalist who isn't "lying by omission".

If we're issuing challenges, then I challenge you to prove that every single journalist IS lying by omission.

A lie by omission is intentionally leaving out facts to misrepresent the truth. Another way to describe it is that a lie by omission is the cherry-picking of facts.

This differs from providing a limited subset of the facts for other reasons. You may not have all the facts yourself, you may not be certain of every fact you have, you may be practically limited by the amount of information that you can convey to your audience (perhaps because the audience only wants to read a 1-page article instead of 10, or perhaps because you don't have the time to write 10 pages instead of 1). In none of these cases are you necessarily lying by omission, as long as you choose to present facts that are representative of the broader set of facts that you have instead of cherry-picking facts to match a given narrative. You may still have implicit bias; that does not mean you are lying by omission because you are not necessarily intending to be biased.

Do you believe that every single journalist is intentionally skewing the truth and cherry-picking their facts to match a hidden agenda? I don't.

[iamnothere]

All right, well if you want to use a reasonable definition of lying by omission then I agree with your premise that most journalists are not lying by omission. I would extend that to say that Greenwald also does not lie by omission. He has his beat, he covers it well, and he has been good about accuracy.

Edit: That's not to say that he's completely unbiased (especially on Twitter), he is human after all. But generally I have been very happy with his reporting, especially since he dares to report on subjects that other parts of the media ignore completely.