This is the most commonly found phrase in media right now
Opinion
Citing ‘no evidence provided’ is a small step forward, but it could become a form of lazy journalism or, worse, a meaningless automatic response. Something more robust is required.
Almost by a form of journalistic osmosis, broadcasters, news agencies and newspapers have developed a strategy to deal with one of the greatest threats to their credibility.
It’s an unprecedented challenge: presidents and leading politicians who deliberately lie or spout false information.
Because of their status and power, they almost have to be reported — but what then? How best to serve their readers and viewers, and prevent them from being misled?
Increasingly, the media in the UK, the US and elsewhere are using a telling phrase to alert their audiences to possible problems.
The actual words can vary from “no evidence has been provided” to “without evidence” to “no evidence to support”. But the near-universal theme is clear: users beware.
A Trump response
Unsurprisingly, US president Donald Trump frequently attracts the “lack of evidence” sticker.
In fact, it may be that such a category of media response has been specially invented to deal with Trump.
CNN reported that Trump fired the US Bureau of Labor Statistics chief by claiming “without evidence” that the numbers had been rigged and were a scam against him.
Also last month, Reuters reported that Trump has accused former president Barack Obama of treason “without providing evidence”.
The Guardian dealt with Trump’s claims that windmills drive whales “loco” and that wind energy was killing them by adding “without evidence”.
That same newspaper last month covered Reform UK leader Nigel Farage at a press conference insinuating that an “extraordinary increase” in rapes was due to “the wrong type of people” coming from countries such as Afghanistan and Iran. The title added: “He provided no evidence to support this inflammatory linkage.”
Put the modern miracles of search engines to use and you can almost be swept away by a torrent of “no evidence” caveats all over the media.
Increasingly meaningless
This seems like a small step forward. After all, we can all remember the days when completely false claims by the powerful were reported unchallenged.
Indeed, more recent examples include the Daily Mail reporting Farage’s Reform policies without analysis or context.
There has also been the time when the BBC reacted to — as it turned out, entirely accurate — predictions of the damaging economic effects of Brexit with claims of “nonsense” by former prime minister Boris Johnson.
So the “no evidence” stratagem is definitely an improvement and a warning signal.
But it is also a cop-out and a form of lazy journalism: “The statements from Trump or Farage may be untrue or at best highly misleading, but we have done our duty by pointing out there is no evidence for the assertions made.”
In time, it could turn into a meaningless automatic response along the lines of tail-ending a story by saying the person involved declined to comment or could not be reached.
Calling it out
In the face of complete falsehoods, something more robust is required. Where possible, and obviously time is the ultimate constraint, things that are wrong have to be called out.
The halfway house of “no evidence was provided” simply will not do.
Luckily, there are many examples of media organisations doing just that.
BBC Verify looked into claims made by Elon Musk that Democrats import illegal immigrants so they can vote. “The investigation found the claims to be unsubstantiated,” it noted.
CNN was tough on Trump’s claims that the cost of everything was falling. “He wrongly claimed that gas was selling Tuesday for below $2 a gallon ‘in five different states’ (it was actually zero states); that prices are ‘all down’ (consumer prices are up under Trump); that Democrats are lying when they say prices are up (these Democrats are correct); that grocery prices ‘are down’ (they are up under Trump); and that core inflation is ‘below 2%’ (it’s 2.9%, per the Consumer Price Index),” CNN pointed out.
The Guardian was also robust on Farage’s claims that crime had rocketed since the 1990s, with total crime 50% higher leading to “societal collapse”. The news brand reported Office for National Statistics figures that concluded crimes against individuals and households had generally fallen over the past 10 years and that there have been long-term declines in violence since the 1990s.
There is even a nice example of the BBC correcting its own false information.
In the Strong Message Here podcast with Armando Iannucci and Helen Lewis, it was stated that tax fraud in the UK was 30 times higher than benefit fraud.
The BBC noted that the statement was made “without evidence” and that statistics put benefit fraud at £6.4bn versus tax evasion at £5.5bn.
Painstaking work
Perhaps the best example of painstaking journalism exposing the facts came in the past few days from Gaza.
The Israeli government has routinely denied deliberately targeting civilians, let alone children, in the region.
In a week when the total reported deaths in Gaza passed the 60,000 mark (according to local health authorities), the BBC World Service investigated the deaths of 160 children, from the start of the current crisis until the end of July.
It found that no fewer than 95 had died of gunshots to the head or chest — indicating they were deliberately targeted.
Such information about gunshot wounds had earlier been reported on the BBC’s Today programme by British surgeons working in hospitals in Gaza.
This week, independent online news organisation Middle East Eye carried an interview with a former US Green Beret officer with 25 years’ service.
Tony Aguilar had been working as a security guard at the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, where many have been shot trying to get food aid.
According to Aguilar, he saw colleagues firing into the crowd and throwing stun grenades, adding that small arms fire came from the Israel Defence Forces.
Even AI agrees
Such reporting demonstrates the importance of facts in the face of lies and exposes the weakness of the “no evidence was provided” approach.
And, finally, one telling last example — if any were still needed of this growing trend.
The Washington Post used AI to fact-check Trump’s allegations that the mainstream media “dish” or “spread lies” about him.
“AI found no evidence supporting sweeping claims about media dishonesty,” the Post concluded.
Raymond Snoddy is a media consultant, national newspaper columnist and former presenter of NewsWatch on BBC News. He writes for The Media Leader on Wednesdays — bookmark his column here.