we shouldn't stick too hard to the names "lie" and "fiction".
If the author of $UTTERANCE disguises it as an accurate description, well knowing that it isn't but intending to deceive the addressees, then I would consider this unethical ("evil").
If the author of $UTTERANCE gives it the appearance of a (supposedly accurate) description without intending to deceive anyone, then I see no ethical problems.
There seem to be two points possibly thwarting the unethicalness: The intent to deceive, i.e. "Harhar, I make them believe that this is true, but it isn't" as opposed to "C'mon, I tell you a story that is Really True (tm)", and the size/impact/whatever of the discrepancy, i.e. "Harhar, I make them believe that the terrorist was a bearded muslim immigrant, while it was Joe Average" as opposed to "Harhar, I make them believe that the terrorist is called Joe, while he is called Jack".
Any "liberal" retelling of an overall true story, especially when it happens in a storytelling context (as in yellow press or worse) will most of the time both lack much "evil" intent and "critical" discrepancy, so I would judge them as ethically uncritical.
BTW., a deception can also be on the meta level, as in "I make them believe this is known true, while I don't have the slightest idea and am too lazy to find out". This is why bad journalism is grossly unethical, in my eyes. |
