Modern economic reporting is often accused of sensationalism, but the problem no longer originates only in newsrooms. Increasingly, the emphatic liar is not just a journalistic tendency rather it is a leadership style. Political and economic leaders now speak in emphatic falsehoods, half-truths, and exaggerated certainties, and large parts of the media faithfully relay those claims, amplifying them in the process. The result is an economic narrative shaped less by evidence than by the rhetorical habits of those in power.
The emphatic liar as leader does not need to fabricate data outright. Instead, they dominate the story through tone. Growth is always “historic,” downturns are always “catastrophic,” policies are either “total failures” or “unprecedented successes.” By flooding the public sphere with emphatic claims, leaders set the emotional register of economic debate before journalists or analysts can intervene.
Economic reporting struggles in this environment because it is reactive by design. Press conferences, speeches, and social media posts from leaders become the raw material of news. When those leaders speak emphatically and misleadingly, the media faces a dilemma: ignore statements that are newsworthy, or repeat them and risk laundering distortion. Too often, repetition wins.
This dynamic is especially powerful because leadership rhetoric comes with institutional authority. When a president, finance minister, or central bank critic declares that inflation is “out of control” or that the economy is “the strongest it has ever been,” the claim carries weight even when contradicted by data. Journalists may add caveats deep in the article, but the emphatic lie has already done its work in the headline and the public imagination.
The leader-emphatic-liar also understands timing. Economic data is released on fixed schedules; rhetoric is not. By speaking loudly and frequently, leaders can fill the gaps between reports with interpretation that favors their agenda. A single weak indicator becomes proof of systemic failure. A temporary improvement becomes evidence of lasting transformation. Economic reporting, forced to chase each statement, risks adopting the leader’s frame rather than interrogating it.
This has profound effects on public understanding. Citizens begin to experience the economy less through their own material conditions and more through political storytelling. If leaders insist the economy is collapsing, people may feel poorer even as wages rise. If leaders insist prosperity has arrived, people struggling to pay rent may conclude the system is rigged or that their own failure is personal rather than structural. In both cases, emphatic lying fractures the link between lived experience and economic explanation.
The danger intensifies when emphatic lying becomes partisan identity. Supporters repeat the leader’s claims as articles of faith; opponents reject any data that appears to validate them. Economic reporting, caught in the middle, is pressured to “balance” emphatic lies with opposing emphatic claims rather than with sober analysis. Debate becomes louder, not clearer.
It would be comforting to believe that journalists can simply fact-check their way out of this problem. But emphatic lying is not defeated by correction alone. A leader can be technically corrected and still rhetorically victorious. Saying “experts disagree” or “data is mixed” does little to counter a confident, emotionally charged assertion delivered from a position of power.
What is required instead is a shift in journalistic emphasis. Reporting should focus less on what leaders say about the economy and more on what economic conditions actually are, even when that means deprioritizing provocative quotes. Context should not be an afterthought but the headline itself. If a leader claims collapse, the lead paragraph should describe stability before mentioning the claim not the other way around.
Editors also need to resist the gravitational pull of leader-driven narratives. Not every emphatic statement deserves equal amplification. Treating rhetoric as spectacle may boost engagement in the short term, but it corrodes credibility over time. Economic reporting must reclaim its role as interpreter, not megaphone.
Readers, too, have a role to play. The emphatic liar thrives on attention. Clicking, sharing, and arguing over exaggerated claims extends their reach. Economic literacy means learning to ask not just whether a claim is true, but whether its emphasis is justified. Volume is not evidence; confidence is not clarity.
The economy is complex, uneven, and often frustrating. It does not conform neatly to political slogans or leadership branding. When leaders insist otherwise, they are not merely oversimplifying, rather they are lying emphatically, reshaping reality through repetition and force of tone.
Economic reporting cannot afford to surrender to this style of leadership. The task of journalism is not to mirror power’s voice, but to discipline it with proportion, context, and humility. In an era where emphatic liars lead from the front, the most radical act for economic reporting may be to speak more quietly and more truthfully.
