There is an odd quirk in our culture, where lying is universally acknowledged to be toxic behavior, but the use of intentionally misleading language is merely frowned upon--as long as it doesn't contain a falsifiable claim. But this is really a distinction without a difference, as they achieve the same goal, which is to put an idea in the mind of the listener/reader which the speaker/writer knows to be false. After all, lying isn't what got us into the current era of a post-truth public discourse. What got us here is a historical and ongoing toleration of journos and politicians who are careful truth tellers in a technical sense, but liars in practice.

In my opinion, these liars-in-practice are far more pernicious than the liars-in-fact. It's easy to disprove a fact, whereas it takes time, effort, and some analytical ability to unpack a carefully worded untruth.

Apologies for the rant.