Does media understand that one reason politicians never stop lying is that even after they& #39;ve proven themselves to be unreliable sources media keeps reporting on them as truth-tellers—making actually *telling* the truth immaterial to someone like McConnell? https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/there-will-be-orderly-transition-mcconnell-dismisses-trump-s-refusal-n1240933">https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/...

Imagine a media landscape in which a politician can *lose their status* as a truth-teller—meaning media stops using them as a source, or reporting the things they say as being anything but claims. How many years ago would Mitch McConnell have lost the right to straight reportage?

Mitch McConnell didn& #39;t "dismiss" Trump& #39;s position—that& #39;s the reporting a *reliable source* gets. What Mitch McConnell did was "decline to adopt Trump& #39;s rhetoric about the election," though "with McConnell& #39;s history his intentions necessarily remain inscrutable and unreportable."

The day is coming when media will understand that the only way to exist in a post-truth DC environment is to refuse to play along. Sources who lie publicly, or privately to reporters, lose their status as sources. Their words and actions are covered via an *alternative* protocol.

News consumers have a responsibility too: a responsibility to understand that *reportage* is susceptible to just parroting the words of liars—and always has been—which is why the term "journalism" includes many other journalistic acts, including columns that call BS on reportage.