Interesting question. Just to check that we're on the same page, it sounds like you're saying that the Federalist article is lying, because it accuses the pres

Interesting question. Just to check that we're on the same page, it sounds like you're saying that the Federalist article is lying, because it accuses the press of lying without knowing whether their falsehoods were honest mistakes, as opposed to being malicious. So we should give the "the media" the benefit of the doubt and not accuse them of lying without proof of maliciousness. I suppose the ironic argument one could make is that The Federalist deserves that same benefit of the doubt when they themselves make poorly substantiated remarks about the media lying. How do we know that their potentially false statement is being made with an intent to deceive? Kind of a lame argument, but I find the idea of it humorous. However, I think it's reasonable to use the term "lying" without proving an intent to deceive. If a media outlet is willing to publish untruthful things that don't even stand up to the most cursory factchecking, I think it is fair to accuse them of lying. When you have such a cavalier (or perhaps even reckless) attitude towards the truth, I would place those falsehoods under the umbrella of lying.