Journalists really don't understand De gustibus non est disputandum

It's just fascinating to see mainstream journalists and their unconscious bias. These are supposed to be people gifted with words and they can't see how they are mistreating the language.

Yesterday there is a knife attack on London Bridge in which two were killed and the attacker then subdued by members of the public. This is from the New York Times' account by Mark Landler and Megan Specia. Deep into the article, Landler and Specia report.

London has long experience of terrorist attacks, and its residents pride themselves on keeping their cool. On Friday evening, pubs across the city filled up with their usual after-work crowds. But the attack left the city uneasy because so many details about the assailant remain unknown.

It also came only days before President Trump and other leaders are scheduled to visit the city for a NATO summit meeting. On Tuesday, Queen Elizabeth II plans to hold a reception marking the alliance’s 70th anniversary at Buckingham Palace.

After the 2017 attack, Mr. Trump criticized Mr. Khan for what the president falsely claimed was the mayor’s lackadaisical response.

It is that last line which leaps out as sheer partisan or ideological propaganda. The idiocy is startlingly transparent. You cannot characterize an opinion as being true or false. It is an opinion. Were journalist even marginally educated, they would be familiar with the classical adage De gustibus non est disputandum.

De gustibus non est disputandum, or de gustibus non disputandum est, is a Latin maxim meaning "In matters of taste, there can be no disputes" (literally "about tastes, it should not be disputed/discussed"). The phrase is commonly rendered in English as "There is no accounting for taste(s)." The implication is that everyone's personal preferences are merely subjective opinions that cannot be right or wrong, so they should never be argued about as if they were. Sometimes the phrase is expanded as De gustibus et coloribus... referring to tastes and colors. The original quotation is an ancient Latin adage, i.e. Roman, and discussed by many philosophers and economists.

In other words, Trump expressed the opinion that London's Mayor's response was lackadaisical. The journalists may disagree with the President's opinion. But they cannot report his opinion as false. Unfounded, disputed, unsupported - all are adequate adjectives to express the journalist's counter-opinion that the President was unjustified in his opinion. But they cannot claim his opinion was false. They have committed a category error as opinions are not subject to verifiability.

"That looks beautiful on you" is neither true nor false, but is an opinion.

"The Mayor's response was lackadaisical" is neither true nor false but is an opinion. Depending on what one considers to be an adequate response, the reporters can demonstrate that there is a greater or lesser likelihood that the opinion is well supported, but they cannot claim it to be either true or false.

Given that terroristic car and knife attacks continue to occur every few months in London, was Khan's response lackadaisical to the 2017 attack? Lots of opinions, but Specia and Landler cannot journalistically declare any of them true or false.

They are simply expressing their political partisan repugnance of Trump. They are not reporting. They are not respecting the language.