A brief digression:

August's third David Manning Liar of the Month is squarely in the sub-category involving extremely trivial lies that typically are made without any serious intention that anyone believe them. What is the harm in such lies? They stand for the proposition that gratuitous lying is okay as long as "nobody gets hurt." But the only way to build an ethical culture is to take the position that lying is inherently wrong, regardless of the reason, content or consequences.

The Associated Press-Ipsos poll on public attitudes about lying released in July actually showed that the public agrees with the Scoreboard on this. A majority of those polled, 52%, said that lying is "never justified." Oddly, "never" lasted about one question for about a quarter of these, as only 36% of the group responded that it was wrong to lie in order to avoid hurting someone's feelings. That meant that 14%, lying is never justified unless it is done to avoid hurting someone with the harsh truth. For the other situations posed by the poll, however, 52% or better agreed that lying wasn't justified.

By definition, a trivial reason to lie is not good enough to justify lying even if you believe lies are sometimes justifiable. Public trivial lies, besides being pointless, chip away at our societal consensus that lies are unacceptable.

And now on to Roger Ailes, the guru of the Fox News Channel, and our designated Liar. Earlier in his career he produced the Mike Douglas Show, and when nice guy Mike suddenly died in Florida, Ailes was ready with glowing words of admiration. Actually, "glowing" isn't the right word.

The right word would be "ridiculous."

Roger Ailes said that Douglas "was one of the great television performers of the 20^th Century whose versatility is unmatched in today's entertainment world."

Now Mike Douglas, it is fair to assume, would have been embarrassed by such a description on the most egotistical day of his life. Douglas hosted a popular daytime TV talk show from 1962 to 1981, singing one bland ballad a day in his pleasant baritone voice to remind people that he used to be a band singer on radio. He didn't tell jokes or play the piano or do skits or create memorable television by asking probing questions of his guests. He was always just easy-going and relaxed in front of the camera and studio audience, and could keep a relatively interesting conversation going with anybody who sat next to him.

Now this is a genuine talent, no doubt about it. Many accomplished performers can't do it at all: Chevy Chase comes to mind. It was one of the very few things that Sammy Davis, Jr. had no aptitude for. But lots and lots of people can do it well and have, several notably more impressively than Mike Douglas: Jack Paar, Steve Allen, and Johnny Carson; David Susskind, Merv Griffin, and David Letterman; Ellen DeGeneris, Phil Donohue, and Dick Cavett; Regis Philbin, Conan O'Brien and Larry King. Only few of them, in their most egotistical moments, would or could claim to be "one of the great television performers" of the 20^th Century: Paar, Allen and Johnny, unless your definition of "great" is "good," or in Douglas' case, "good enough."

Perhaps Roger Ailes' has an extremely large personal pantheon of "great television performers," but even calling Douglas a "performer" is pushing it. He sang, but only one song each show, occasionally a couple more when a singer was a guest. What he did, almost exclusively, is host---, welcome celebrities and others into the studio, and chat with them amiably. If that made him a great television performer, what were Milton Berle, Steve Allen, George Burns, Gracie Allen, Bob Hope, Perry Como, Andy Williams, Dinah Shore, Rosemary Clooney, Sid Caesar, the Smothers Brothers, Glenn Campbell, Dick Van Dyke, Andy Griffith, Don Knotts, Jack Webb, James Garner, Robert Young, Loretta Young, Mary Tyler Moore, Lucille Ball, Tim Conway, Carol Burnett, Carroll O'Connor, Alan Alda, James Arness, Raymond Burr, Buddy Ebson, Eddie Albert, Rowan and Martin, Flip Wilson, Bill Cosby, Judy Garland, Danny Kaye, Phil Silvers, Jackie Gleason, Jimmy Durante, Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra, Bob Hope, Red Skelton, Art Carney and scores of others?

Greater. Much, much greater. If Roger Ailes isn't aware of this, if he has a narrow and unsophisticated appreciation of performing ability like the Germans who buy David Hasselhoff's CDs, then he wasn't lying about his opinion of Mike Douglas after all. But people who have narrow and unsophisticated appreciation of performers don't have forty years of success in television production, which Roger Ailes has. He knew exactly how good Mike Douglas was, and he also knew who was better.

The second part of Ailes' salute is even more disconnected from reality, if possible. "Unmatched versatility?" Whatever Mike Douglas' virtues as a talk show host were, versatility was not among them. Tony Danza, who can sort of act, sort of dance, and sort of sing in addition to being a passable comic and talk show host, is infinitely more versatile, and he's not even an "A list" talent. How about Harry Connick Jr.? Dolly Parton? Robin Williams? Jim Carey? Meryl Streep is an excellent comic and singer in addition to her dramatic talents; so is Glenn Close. Steve Martin can dance, act and write hit plays as well as being a "wild and crazy guy." Martin Short can sing, do serious acting, and do dead-on impressions in addition to physical comedy. Johnny Depp. Will Smith. Kevin Klein. On a show business versatility scale, these performers would swallow a Mike Douglas whole and still have room for teen idol Hillary Duff, who herself is more versatile than Mike Douglas was on his best day.

Okay, so Roger Ailes went a little overboard to say nice things about his old friend on the day he died. What's the matter with that?

There are three things wrong with it. First, Ailes' statement is an obvious lie. Second, it was unnecessary. Mike Douglas had a terrific career; he had a couple of hit records, he was the voice of the prince in Disney's "Cinderella," his syndicated show lasted twenty years, and perhaps most of all, he was by all accounts a genuinely decent man whom nobody ever seems to have said a bad word about…a real rarity in the entertainment business. There were plenty of things that Ailes could have said about Mike Douglas that would have been appropriate, celebratory, complimentary, and true. Finally, Ailes' excessive praise was ultimately unfair to the very man it was designed to benefit, for over-stating Douglas' talents only focuses our attention on his limitations. When someone hears it said that a performer was one of the all-time greats, he naturally starts to reflect on whether that is a legitimate assessment, and in the case of a Mike Douglas, it requires about 5 seconds to conclude that the claim is baseless. So at a time when it is appropriate to consider what we remember and liked about Mike Douglas, a statement like Ailes' has the effect of making us think about all the things he was not, and all the talents he did not possess.

Stretching the truth is a bad habit, but if the practice can ever be excused, it is when it is used to praise a recently departed friend. Stretching the truth beyond all reason and argument, however, is inexcusable, no matter what the objective or how well intended.