And as they get caught in their lies, they will get better at lying. They won’t give enough specifics to refudiate them as thoroughly as Gross was refuted—by the people who were there—and repudiated, by people who recognize his article for the sexist trash that it is.

They’ll maintain a plausible deniability: rather than say it happened at such-and-such event, they’ll just say “an event”, and when someone like Dr. Loudon says it didn’t happen that way, they’ll just say, no, that wasn’t the event I meant.

And they’ll get even better, and just make it up completely—so that all anyone will be able to say several months or years later is “I don’t remember anything like that happening.”

When the mainstream media wrote rave reviews of Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine, they were embarassed because their reviews included things they’d learned from the movie. Most of those things turned out to be completely, embarassingly wrong. The lesson they took to heart on reviewing Moore’s next movie was not to distrust biased documentaries; it was to not include any specifics about what they learned. We were treated to lengthy reviews of a movie that said nothing about the movie beyond that it raised “larger truths”.

These journalists may be biased, and some of them, like Gross, do appear to be lacking in basic logic, but as a whole they learn from their mistakes. When they start writing things that can’t be checked one way or another, remember that we already know they lie.

Verify or it didn’t happen.