presswatchers--2020-03-31--Political journalists are still headlining Trump’s nonsense and trying to explain his decision-makin

Political journalists are still headlining Trump’s nonsense and trying to explain his decision-making. Stop!

Donald Trump couldn ’ t have made it clearer on Monday that he has no idea what is going on , nor any idea how to get out of this mess .
“ I haven ’ t heard about testing in weeks , ” Trump told governors , one of whom had just complained to him about the lack of testing .
“ I haven ’ t heard about testing being a problem.
” The lack of testing is the nation ’ s second-most urgent current problem , behind the inexcusable lack of equipment to protect responders and treat patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few days ( not weeks ) test kits have been and remain in short supply almost everywhere , making it impossible for public-health officials to fully assess the extent of the crisis .
But even more than that , looking forward , the lack of testing – the lack of even a plan for testing – is the single biggest obstacle to a return to normalcy .
If you missed it , please please read my March 27 article on the consensus among public-health experts that the only way we ’ ll know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out again is if the government initiates widespread , quick-turnaround , publicly-reported testing for the coronavirus – not just of the sick or scared , but of cross sections of every community .
In short , we need to know where it ’ s safe , not just where it ’ s dangerous .
The New York Times , exhibiting incredibly poor judgement , on Monday evening chose to make it sound like the lack of testing is simply a matter of opinion .
The lead headline on its home page first claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Is No Longer an Issue , ” before morphing into the just-as-bad “ Trump Suggests Lack of Testing Is No Longer a Problem .
Governors Disagree.
” That ’ s the headline that also appeared the article by Jonathan Martin , Maggie Haberman and Mike Baker .
It may have been the worst example of lobotomized , false-equivalence stenography I ’ ve seen since the crisis started .
Media critics and public-health experts alike responded with alarm on social media .
The defining tweet ended up being the one from Yale epidemiologist Gregg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smug and defensive ( and now majorly ratio ’ d ) tweet from the article ’ s lead author : No more benefit of the doubt Nothing Trump says should be accepted on face value – and especially not when legions of people dealing with reality are so quickly able to disprove him .
But what concerns me even more than this particular Times article – and mind you , I blame the editors , particularly Dean Baquet , more than any individual reporter – is the way corporate media political journalists are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under assumptions that apply to normal presidents , but not to Trump .
For example , too many elite reporters still act as if his decision-making can be rationally explained .
They still twist themselves into journalistic pretzels trying to explain how Trump arrived at some conclusion , when the cumulative evidence is overwhelming that — beyond some sort of autonomic response to the basest political calculations — his behavior is unpredictable , irrational , and highly dependent on whoever whispered into his ear ( or who he was watching on Fox News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of articles that appeared in the Tuesday editions of the Washington Post , the New York Times , and the Los Angeles Times , attempting to explain Trump ’ s abrupt reversal on his pledge to re-open much of the country by Easter Sunday .
The Washington Post headline claimed that “ Both public health and politics played a role in Trump ’ s coronavirus decision.
” Ashley Parker , Josh Dawsey and Yasmeen Abutaleb wrote that , on the one hand , “ Trump and his advisers pointed to factors ranging from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths to the unsettling sight of body bags lined up outside a Queens hospital.
” On the other hand , Trump campaign officials had “ briefed the president in recent days… arguing that a spike in deaths could be even more politically damaging in November than the current economic downturn.
” The authors acknowledged that “ [ a ] n undercurrent of political calculation has coursed through much of Trump ’ s decision-making on the coronavirus.
” But they still gave credence – at least enough to put it in their story – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has been increasingly driven by the responsibility as the commander in chief to protect the lives of Americans , after coming to understand just how deadly the pandemic is likely to be.
” Ridiculously enough , they quote Sen. Lindsey Graham saying Trump “ flipped when he heard that 2.2 million could die if he did nothing.
” But Trump was familiar with that particular study and number more than two weeks ago .
The biggest problem with the story , as Cornell history professor Lawrence Glickman angrily tweeted , is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narcissism and calling it ‘ politics.
’ ” It was , in short , a bunch of spin .
Media critic Eric Boehlert tweeted : The New York Times ’ s dynamic duo of Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman also explained that Trump ’ s decision came as the result of his exposure to “ two sets of numbers ” – death estimates and polling data .
Yes , sure , they wrote that “ Trump ’ s abrupt change of heart reflected a volatile president who has veered from one message to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whipsaws back and forth as aides compete for his ear and offer conflicting advice.
” Noah Bierman and Chris Megerian of the Los Angeles Times did a much better job of putting Trump ’ s latest reversal in its proper context .
They astutely observed that Trump ’ s “ meandering , frequently testy , near-daily news briefings ” have “ provided a real-time look at Trump ’ s decision-making process — the vacillating , the wishful thinking , the degree to which he ’ s influenced by whoever talked to him last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TV — that has long been reflected in the daily chaos of his presidency but never tested as when so many American lives were at stake.
” So , you know , you can judge for yourself .
Their kicker was essentially a debunking of the Washington Post and New York Times articles : By Monday , Trump was quoting worst-case scenarios , suggesting 2.2 million Americans could die if people returned to work and school too early .
Some of the projections were published weeks ago , influencing the initial decision on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But Trump acted as if the model was new , only revealed to him on Sunday… “ I used to say , a lot of people said , ‘ Could you just have kept [ normal life ] going ?
Like the flu , like a bad case of the flu , a really bad case ?
’ ” he said Monday on “ Fox & Friends.
” “ And the answer came in yesterday … 2.2 million people could have died.
” Trump said he is relying on the experts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus runs on its own schedule , Trump couldn ’ t resist setting a new deadline .
“ We think by June 1 , a lot of great things will be happening , ” he said .
A CNN analysis by Stephen Collinson also earned some ribbing on social media , from outspoken broadcast journalist Soledad O ’ Brien and New York Times opinion columnist Jamelle Bouie : It ’ s long past time reporters stopped quoting Trump ’ s outrageous falsehoods and giving them equal standing to the truth .
And it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying so hard to explain Trump ’ s thinking , and instead explained that it is inexplicable .

Donald Trump couldn’t have made it clearer on Monday that he has no idea what is going on, nor any idea how to get out of this mess.
“I haven’t heard about testing in weeks,” Trump told governors, one of whom had just complained to him about the lack of testing. “I haven’t heard about testing being a problem.”
The lack of testing is the nation’s second-most urgent current problem, behind the inexcusable lack of equipment to protect responders and treat patients. Despite some progress over the last few days (not weeks) test kits have been and remain in short supply almost everywhere, making it impossible for public-health officials to fully assess the extent of the crisis.
But even more than that, looking forward, the lack of testing – the lack of even a plan for testing – is the single biggest obstacle to a return to normalcy.
If you missed it, please please read my March 27 article on the consensus among public-health experts that the only way we’ll know when it’s safe to come out again is if the government initiates widespread, quick-turnaround, publicly-reported testing for the coronavirus – not just of the sick or scared, but of cross sections of every community.
In short, we need to know where it’s safe, not just where it’s dangerous.
The New York Times, exhibiting incredibly poor judgement, on Monday evening chose to make it sound like the lack of testing is simply a matter of opinion. The lead headline on its home page first claimed “Despite Pushback, Trump Suggests Testing Is No Longer an Issue,” before morphing into the just-as-bad “Trump Suggests Lack of Testing Is No Longer a Problem. Governors Disagree.”
The article, by Jonathan Martin, Maggie Haberman and Mike Baker, may have been the worst example of lobotomized, false-equivalence stenography I’ve seen since the crisis started.
Media critics and public-health experts alike responded with alarm on social media. The defining tweet ended up being the one from Yale epidemiologist Gregg Gonsalves – especially after it elicited a smug and defensive (and now majorly ratio’d) tweet from the article’s lead author:
you’re picking the wrong fight, move along — Jonathan Martin (@jmartNYT) March 31, 2020
No more benefit of the doubt
Nothing Trump says should be accepted on face value – and especially not when legions of people dealing with reality are so quickly able to disprove him.
But what concerns me even more than this particular Times article – and mind you, I blame the editors, particularly Dean Baquet, more than any individual reporter – is the way corporate media political journalists are still, as a whole, working under assumptions that apply to normal presidents, but not to Trump.
For example, too many elite reporters still act as if his decision-making can be rationally explained.
They still twist themselves into journalistic pretzels trying to explain how Trump arrived at some conclusion, when the cumulative evidence is overwhelming that — beyond some sort of autonomic response to the basest political calculations — his behavior is unpredictable, irrational, and highly dependent on whoever whispered into his ear (or who he was watching on Fox News) most recently.
Consider a trio of articles that appeared in the Tuesday editions of the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times, attempting to explain Trump’s abrupt reversal on his pledge to re-open much of the country by Easter Sunday.
The Washington Post headline claimed that “Both public health and politics played a role in Trump’s coronavirus decision.”
Ashley Parker, Josh Dawsey and Yasmeen Abutaleb wrote that, on the one hand, “Trump and his advisers pointed to factors ranging from grim computer models showing millions of potential deaths to the unsettling sight of body bags lined up outside a Queens hospital.”
On the other hand, Trump campaign officials had “briefed the president in recent days… arguing that a spike in deaths could be even more politically damaging in November than the current economic downturn.”
The authors acknowledged that “[a]n undercurrent of political calculation has coursed through much of Trump’s decision-making on the coronavirus.”
But they still gave credence – at least enough to put it in their story – to the view from allies that “he has been increasingly driven by the responsibility as the commander in chief to protect the lives of Americans, after coming to understand just how deadly the pandemic is likely to be.”
Ridiculously enough, they quote Sen. Lindsey Graham saying Trump “flipped when he heard that 2.2 million could die if he did nothing.” But Trump was familiar with that particular study and number more than two weeks ago.
The biggest problem with the story, as Cornell history professor Lawrence Glickman angrily tweeted, is that it “normalizes Trump by downplaying his narcissism and calling it ‘politics.’”
Then, they discuss his “clash with Democratic governors, especially when he has felt they were insuffficiently appreciative,” as if this is some kind of normal political dispute, rather than a president threatening in a fit of childish pique to let Americans die. /3 pic.twitter.com/nzqq1kISmL — Lawrence Glickman (@LarryGlickman) March 31, 2020
It was, in short, a bunch of spin. Media critic Eric Boehlert tweeted:
Trump contradicts himself (daily), press next day quotes anonymous aides who offer up feel-good explanations stop trying to normalize https://t.co/j2EZeOt7YV — Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) March 31, 2020
The New York Times’s dynamic duo of Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman also explained that Trump’s decision came as the result of his exposure to “two sets of numbers” – death estimates and polling data.
Yes, sure, they wrote that “Trump’s abrupt change of heart reflected a volatile president who has veered from one message to another” and that he “often whipsaws back and forth as aides compete for his ear and offer conflicting advice.”
Nevertheless, they dutifully reported:
Those two realities — the dire threat to the country and the caution of the American public — proved decisive at a critical juncture in the response to the pandemic, his advisers said.
Washington Post opinion columnist Greg Sargent noted drily:
It's just weird how the media is widely portraying Trump's shift on social distancing as a massive surrender to facts, data and science — without quite conveying how deeply crazy it is that he only capitulated to those things when he absolutely had to.https://t.co/WfW5BLW6kk pic.twitter.com/hNuekVlf7D — Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) March 31, 2020
Noah Bierman and Chris Megerian of the Los Angeles Times did a much better job of putting Trump’s latest reversal in its proper context.
They astutely observed that Trump’s “meandering, frequently testy, near-daily news briefings” have “provided a real-time look at Trump’s decision-making process — the vacillating, the wishful thinking, the degree to which he’s influenced by whoever talked to him last or whatever he last saw on cable TV — that has long been reflected in the daily chaos of his presidency but never tested as when so many American lives were at stake.”
So, you know, you can judge for yourself.
Their kicker was essentially a debunking of the Washington Post and New York Times articles:
By Monday, Trump was quoting worst-case scenarios, suggesting 2.2 million Americans could die if people returned to work and school too early. Some of the projections were published weeks ago, influencing the initial decision on March 16 to recommend strict social distancing. But Trump acted as if the model was new, only revealed to him on Sunday… “I used to say, a lot of people said, ‘Could you just have kept [normal life] going? Like the flu, like a bad case of the flu, a really bad case?’” he said Monday on “Fox & Friends.” “And the answer came in yesterday … 2.2 million people could have died.” Trump said he is relying on the experts. But while Fauci has warned that the coronavirus runs on its own schedule, Trump couldn’t resist setting a new deadline. “We think by June 1, a lot of great things will be happening,” he said.
A CNN analysis by Stephen Collinson also earned some ribbing on social media, from outspoken broadcast journalist Soledad O’Brien and New York Times opinion columnist Jamelle Bouie:
“there are signs he doesn’t fully understand….”. There are not ‘signs’. There is clear overt evidence, on display daily. In press briefings, that are bizarre and riddled with lies and inaccuracies. *sigh* It is interesting to me to normalize what is not normal. https://t.co/kI2zpNhjYk — Soledad O'Brien (@soledadobrien) March 31, 2020
This isn't a bad news analysis but it is still very weird to read reporters write around the fact that Trump is an adult toddler with no understanding of the world around him. https://t.co/6oO2Luf5Oy — b-boy bouiebaisse (@jbouie) March 31, 2020
It’s long past time reporters stopped quoting Trump’s outrageous falsehoods and giving them equal standing to the truth.
And it’s long past time reporters stopped trying so hard to explain Trump’s thinking, and instead explained that it is inexplicable.


presswatchers--2020-03-30--Don’t fall for Trump’s effort to recast himself as the benevolent leader of a unified country

After weeks spent angrily downplaying the threat of the coronavirus , Donald Trump is now trying to describe the nation ’ s inconsistent and still wildly insufficient response as some sort of glorious – even “ beautiful ” — expression of national unity .
Front-line responders , public-health officials , and Democrats are still fighting Trump tooth and nail to hasten the production of desperately needed protective equipment and to expand crucial testing .
Meanwhile , instead of leading , Trump focuses on making it look like he ’ s leading .
His daily camera-hogging press conferences are full of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but they do create the imagery of someone in charge in a time of crisis .
And each day , the most divisive president in American history tries harder and harder to recast himself as a benevolent leader of a unified country .
It ’ s a tough sell .
Especially when it ’ s so over-the-top like it was on Sunday .
“ So I just want to end by saying that we ’ re all in this together , all of us , ” he said as he wrapped up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never seen anything like it .
The unity , the esprit de corps , the spirit — I ’ ve never seen anything like it .
It ’ s a beautiful thing to watch.
” Even considering that ’ s a stock phrase Trump uses – it was “ a beautiful thing to watch ” as his Republican opponents fell by the wayside in 2015 ; it was “ a beautiful thing to see ” Republicans in lockstep during the House impeachment hearings – the phrase was terribly inapt .
And yes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Unfortunately , the enemy is death , ” he continued .
“ It ’ s death .
A lot of people are dying , so it ’ s very unpleasant .
It ’ s a very unpleasant thing to go through.
” But then it was right back to marveling at “ the level of competence , the level of caring , the level of love , I — I just think it ’ s brilliant.
” All this started last week , just a couple days after Trump was widely criticized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who had asked if he had any empathy for “ Americans who are scared.
” Somebody at the White House obviously decided that Trump needed to look a little more human , and a lot more presidential .
So they started writing him new lines .
Here ’ s what Trump said on March 22 , reading from notes : For those of you who are feeling alone and isolated , I want you to know that we are all joined together as one people , eternally linked by our shared national spirit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spirit of courage and love and patriotism .
No American is alone as long as we are united .
And we are united .
We ’ re very united .
People are saying things now that , three weeks ago , they didn ’ t talk that way .
We ’ re very united .
No force is equal to the strength of a uni- — really , a unified America , a united America , an America like we have it right now .
He finished up with a line he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m very proud of our country .
I ’ m very proud .
I ’ m very proud to be your President.
” None of this is an accident .
Indeed , the Trump campaign put out a video ad on March 27 , complete with dramatic score , Trump talking about how “ there ’ s spirit in this country like never before , ” and admiring clips from Democrats and journalists mostly taken out of context , including CNN reporter Dana Bash saying “ he is being the kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you buy it ?
Of course not .
Will the media ?
Keep in mind the New York Times ( if only briefly ) headlined Trump ’ s manifestly insincere speech in El Paso — after a white supremacist quite possibly inspired by his racist incitements killed 22 people at a Walmart there – “ TRUMP URGES UNITY AGAINST RACISM.
” The elite political press swoons when Trump does anything that looks even a little bit presidential .
Then again , as long as Trump continues to mix his standard , often vitriolic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coverage is more likely to be like what David Smith wrote for the Guardian after Sunday ’ s briefing , i.e .
that Trump “ undermined his plea for unity by uttering falsehoods , verbally abusing reporters and making incendiary allegations that implied health care workers were stealing masks , without providing evidence.
” What I would like to see is our elite reporters taking note of Trump ’ s attempt to paint a rosy patriotic picture , and making it clear that it is not based on reality but is instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond his less-than-a-majority political base .
Indeed , it would be the perfect occasion to call attention to something really quite astounding about Trump that the press long ago stopped being surprised about : that Trump has not once made a genuine effort to reach out to the people who don ’ t support him already .
Atlantic national correspondent James Fallows , in an essay about how the political press has become inured to Trump ’ s outrageous behavior , cited as one example the minimal attention paid to Trump inviting only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stimulus bill .
Fallows explained : He ’ s going to keep at it Trump ’ s attempts to look like the leader of a united people are only going to get more desperate as time goes on .
His approval-rating “ bump , ” when put in its proper context , no longer seems so impressive — rather than a “ rally around the president ” it was more a “ rally around the flag , ” and it wasn ’ t even much of one of those .
But as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Linge reported , “ the media ’ s relentless focus on Trump and his response to the pandemic — no matter how dismissive or critical its tone — is serving his purposes by fixing the spotlight on him and on the crisis itself.
” The briefings , especially as long as the networks keep airing them — and doing so without any journalistic value added — are the most powerful propaganda tools he has at his disposal .
One of the many excellent points New York Times TV critic James Poniewozik made about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they “ are something that Mr. Trump hasn ’ t had since he declared Leeza Gibbons the winner of his final ‘ Celebrity Apprentice ’ in 2015 : a TV show aimed at a wide mass audience.
” And that audience , Poniewozik wrote , wants “ a reason to believe things will get better.
” Trump knows that .
He also knows that even people who wouldn ’ t normally be rooting for him certainly don ’ t want him to fail even worse than he already has .
And he also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weakness for things that sound “ presidential ” .
That ’ s why he ’ s saying things like : “ We ’ re truly seeing America at its best .
We ’ re really seeing things that people never thought even could happen.
” But he ’ s only right about the second thing , and not the way he means .

After weeks spent angrily downplaying the threat of the coronavirus, Donald Trump is now trying to describe the nation’s inconsistent and still wildly insufficient response as some sort of glorious – even “beautiful” — expression of national unity.
Front-line responders, public-health officials, and Democrats are still fighting Trump tooth and nail to hasten the production of desperately needed protective equipment and to expand crucial testing.
Meanwhile, instead of leading, Trump focuses on making it look like he’s leading. His daily camera-hogging press conferences are full of lies and almost entirely devoid of substance, but they do create the imagery of someone in charge in a time of crisis.
And each day, the most divisive president in American history tries harder and harder to recast himself as a benevolent leader of a unified country.
It’s a tough sell. Especially when it’s so over-the-top like it was on Sunday. “So I just want to end by saying that we’re all in this together, all of us,” he said as he wrapped up his prepared remarks. “I have never seen anything like it. The unity, the esprit de corps, the spirit — I’ve never seen anything like it. It’s a beautiful thing to watch.”
A beautiful thing to watch??
Even considering that’s a stock phrase Trump uses – it was “a beautiful thing to watch” as his Republican opponents fell by the wayside in 2015; it was “a beautiful thing to see” Republicans in lockstep during the House impeachment hearings – the phrase was terribly inapt.
And yes, Trump quickly acknowledged a darker side: “Unfortunately, the enemy is death,” he continued. “It’s death. A lot of people are dying, so it’s very unpleasant. It’s a very unpleasant thing to go through.”
But then it was right back to marveling at “the level of competence, the level of caring, the level of love, I — I just think it’s brilliant.”
All this started last week, just a couple days after Trump was widely criticized for bizarrely lashing out at a reporter who had asked if he had any empathy for “Americans who are scared.”
Somebody at the White House obviously decided that Trump needed to look a little more human, and a lot more presidential. So they started writing him new lines.
Here’s what Trump said on March 22, reading from notes:
For those of you who are feeling alone and isolated, I want you to know that we are all joined together as one people, eternally linked by our shared national spirit — we love our country — a spirit of courage and love and patriotism. No American is alone as long as we are united. And we are united. We’re very united. People are saying things now that, three weeks ago, they didn’t talk that way. We’re very united. No force is equal to the strength of a uni- — really, a unified America, a united America, an America like we have it right now.
He finished up with a line he has since delivered pretty much daily: “I’m very proud of our country. I’m very proud. I’m very proud to be your President.”
None of this is an accident. Indeed, the Trump campaign put out a video ad on March 27, complete with dramatic score, Trump talking about how “there’s spirit in this country like never before,” and admiring clips from Democrats and journalists mostly taken out of context, including CNN reporter Dana Bash saying “he is being the kind of leader that people need.”
Do you buy it? Of course not. Will the media? Keep in mind the New York Times (if only briefly) headlined Trump’s manifestly insincere speech in El Paso — after a white supremacist quite possibly inspired by his racist incitements killed 22 people at a Walmart there – “TRUMP URGES UNITY AGAINST RACISM.”
The elite political press swoons when Trump does anything that looks even a little bit presidential.
Then again, as long as Trump continues to mix his standard, often vitriolic talking points with these new ones, the coverage is more likely to be like what David Smith wrote for the Guardian after Sunday’s briefing, i.e. that Trump “undermined his plea for unity by uttering falsehoods, verbally abusing reporters and making incendiary allegations that implied health care workers were stealing masks, without providing evidence.”
What I would like to see is our elite reporters taking note of Trump’s attempt to paint a rosy patriotic picture, and making it clear that it is not based on reality but is instead a transparent attempt to extend his support beyond his less-than-a-majority political base.
Indeed, it would be the perfect occasion to call attention to something really quite astounding about Trump that the press long ago stopped being surprised about: that Trump has not once made a genuine effort to reach out to the people who don’t support him already.
Atlantic national correspondent James Fallows, in an essay about how the political press has become inured to Trump’s outrageous behavior, cited as one example the minimal attention paid to Trump inviting only Republicans to the signing of the bipartisan stimulus bill. Fallows explained:
Every other president has tried, at some point, to expand his support beyond those who originally voted for him (which is why all others have at some point had popularity ratings of 60 percent or 70 percent). Every other one has at some point tried to express the interests of the entire public, not just “the base.” Trump has never done either—and that failure is so baked-in that it barely registers now.
He’s going to keep at it
Trump’s attempts to look like the leader of a united people are only going to get more desperate as time goes on. His approval-rating “bump,” when put in its proper context, no longer seems so impressive — rather than a “rally around the president” it was more a “rally around the flag,” and it wasn’t even much of one of those.
But as the New York Post’s Mary Kay Linge reported, “the media’s relentless focus on Trump and his response to the pandemic — no matter how dismissive or critical its tone — is serving his purposes by fixing the spotlight on him and on the crisis itself.”
The briefings, especially as long as the networks keep airing them — and doing so without any journalistic value added — are the most powerful propaganda tools he has at his disposal.
One of the many excellent points New York Times TV critic James Poniewozik made about the daily events on Monday is that they “are something that Mr. Trump hasn’t had since he declared Leeza Gibbons the winner of his final ‘Celebrity Apprentice’ in 2015: a TV show aimed at a wide mass audience.”
And that audience, Poniewozik wrote, wants “a reason to believe things will get better.”
Trump knows that. He also knows that even people who wouldn’t normally be rooting for him certainly don’t want him to fail even worse than he already has. And he also knows about the corporate media’s weakness for things that sound “presidential”.
That’s why he’s saying things like: “We’re truly seeing America at its best. We’re really seeing things that people never thought even could happen.”
But he’s only right about the second thing, and not the way he means.


presswatchers--2020-03-27--The question the press should be asking: How will we know when it’s safe to come out again?

There ’ s a clear path out of this crisis , and Donald Trump isn ’ t taking it .
Journalists should be demanding to know why not .
Public-health experts , if you ask them , will tell you that the only way life will return to something like normal is if the government initiates widespread , quick-turnaround , publicly-reported testing for the coronavirus – not just of the sick or scared , but of cross sections of every community .
That ’ s the only way we ’ ll know if it ’ s safe to come out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the short term should be measured against that goal .
Especially with Trump expressing growing impatience and denial — hinting that he ’ ll encourage many Americans to venture out again by Easter Sunday , with possibly cataclysmic consequences — the questions reporters should be asking at every White House briefing and of every official and public-health expert are : How can we know when it ’ s safe to come out again ?
When will that happen ?
And what are you doing about it ?
To understand how we end this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the beginning .
As soon as COVID-19 landed on our shores , the government should have responded by testing anyone who might have been infected , and isolating those who tested positive .
Instead , the virus was left to spread entirely out of control .
Now , it ’ s out there .
We don ’ t know precisely where , so it feels like it ’ s everywhere .
We have a pretty good idea where it ’ s concentrated — at least so far — but we don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So we don ’ t know how to stay away and stay safe .
Public-health experts say they hope that our current social distancing regime will slow the spread of the virus and buy us enough time to do what we should have done in the first place : Test and isolate , albeit on a much bigger scale than would have been necessary if we ’ d caught it early .
But is the government even working toward that goal ?
There are few signs .
What needs to be done ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
That ’ s what we need to know .
And that ’ s what journalists we need to be asking , every day .
We recently learned that Trump failed to follow the “ pandemic playbook ” left to him by the Obama administration , with obviously disastrous consequences .
Imagine if the media had found a copy of that playbook early on , and could have held Trump accountable to it !
The coverage would have been vastly better and more effective .
Now , of course , what we need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ screwed up the pandemic here ’ s what to do playbook , ” so the media can use that to hold Trump accountable .
And guess what ?
A recent Atlantic article by Aaron E. Carroll , a professor of pediatrics at the Indiana University School of Medicine , and Ashish Jha , a professor of global health at Harvard University , is a reasonable substitute .
The way to stop the spread is actually quite simple , they wrote : So here ’ s how we avoid a choice between “ millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Carroll and Jha wrote : So there you have it .
Lots of other experts agree .
In a Washington Post opinion piece titled “ When will it be safe to go out again ?
” Tom Frieden , a former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , said the answer if for there to be “ widespread testing , rapid and effective contact tracing , isolation of patients and quarantine of contacts , ” with a particular emphasis on “ rapid-turnaround-time tests.
” He concluded : New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current situation particularly well : The “ difficult actions we are taking now , ” as Carroll and Jha put it , basically just buy us time .
The media needs to be pushing government officials at all levels to stop wasting that time .
A whole new kind of testing A lot of reporting about testing so far has been misguided .
For one the numerators — in this case , meaning the number of positive test results — don ’ t mean much if you don ’ t know what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how many people are being tested , and under what circumstances — are changing faster than the numerators , and differ immensely from place to place .
We know things are going very badly , in terms of the overall direction , but that ’ s about it .
Secondly , we ’ re only hearing about diagnostic tests — tests that are basically used on sick people to determine what kind of medical help they need .
But in order for us to find out when and where it will be safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is called “ surveillance ” testing .
In a recent appearance on the Deep State Radio podcast , journalist and pandemic expert Laurie Garrett talked about the bizarre – and insufficiently questioned – lack of emphasis on surveillance testing in the government ’ s current planning .
Consider : One problem that we have in the United States is a lot of public confusion and politician confusion about testing in the sense that there ’ s two different kinds of testing and they actually should not physically be the same tests .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are you infected ?
Do we need to rush you to the intensive care unit right now ?
And that diagnostic test has to be incredibly accurate… .
America ’ s whole thrust is about diagnostic testing , which is most appropriately executed in a medical setting .
Then there ’ s another kind of test — surveillance testing — that can be a lot sloppier , but it needs to be a lot faster , cheaper and easier to do .
And surveillance testing is the sort of key to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You know , what age group is most at risk , who ’ s spreading it to whom… And we don ’ t have a surveillance tool as far as I know at this moment .
Nobody ’ s really seriously even developing one .
There ’ s not a lot of money thrown to it .
It ’ s for reasons that absolutely defy my imagination .
It seems to have escaped the entire CDC and national government ’ s radar scope .
So what that means is that we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blind as possible .
It ’ s like trying to land a plane when your radar is broken and there ’ s a fog bank ahead .
We ’ re heading for the landing strip .
We know it ’ s somewhere over there .
We just hope we don ’ t hit any buildings as we come down .
Lindsay F. Wiley , who teaches public health law at the American University ’ s law school , explained in a must-read Twitter thread : Talk to someone who got it right With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drivel , lies , and flimflam , it ’ s more important than ever for journalists to give voice to the experts .
So let ’ s hear what one has to say .
When I turn to experts , I try to find someone who was right when a lot of other people were wrong .
That ’ s why I called Jennifer Nuzzo .
Nuzzo , an epidemiologist and expert in disease outbreak detection and response at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security , testified to Congress on Feb. 5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump blocked some travel from China – the singular achievement that he clings to as having proven his mettle as a “ wartime president , ” earning him a “ 10 ” out of 10 for his response to the coronavirus crisis .
Nuzzo said it wouldn ’ t work .
Here ’ s the transcript ; here ’ s the video .
Here ’ s what she said : She was correct on all counts .
She then explained that it was a distraction from more necessary measures : None of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump ’ s action made us less safe .
Now , Nuzzo is focusing on how we get out of this mess .
The most urgent problem , Nuzzo told me in a phone interview , is getting sufficient personal protective equipment for the doctors , nurses and other medical workers who are putting themselves on the line .
But almost as urgent , she said , is the need to expand testing .
“ We need to do a better job of finding cases , ” she said .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the curve.
” Singapore , she pointed out , was able to avoid the kind of shutdown we ’ re experiencing here because authorities there acted quickly to find people who had the virus , trace their contacts , and isolate the sick so the healthy could continue to go about their business .
It ’ s too late for us to do that now , Nuzzo said .
“ But if we get our case numbers down through these various measures that we ’ re taking , then we maybe have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Nuzzo added that although state and local officials have taken the lead in so many areas , this is one area where the White House needs to lead .
“ We can ’ t take a federalist approach to this , ” she said .
“ We need a national approach.
” What other countries can teach us Nuzzo mentioned Singapore because what we didn ’ t do – in comparison to countries that responded quickly and successfully — informs what we still have a chance to do , going forward .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Matt Apuzzo and Selam Gebrekidan wrote in the New York Times : For now , one of the few places in the U.S. where people can get a quick serology test is in Southern California ’ s Little Saigon .
Scott Schwebke and Teri Sforza wrote in the Orange County Register about a local doctor offering a finger-prick test that provides results in 10 minutes .
Where did they come from ?
This doctor imported thousands of the tests from South Korea .
Blood tests spot antibodies in people who have had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detect active disease .
So they serve different purposes .
But to help officials ascertain the extent of the virus ’ s spread — for surveillance testing — the quick and easy one has huge advantages .
Meanwhile , at the White House To say that Trump doesn ’ t get any of this would be a dramatic understatement .
Back on March 6 , in one of his most dazzling displays of ignorance , deceit and delusion , Trump insisted , repeatedly , that “ Anybody that wants a test can get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bottom line is.
” He called the theoretically omnipresent test kits “ beautiful ” and said they were as “ perfect ” as the phone call with the Ukrainian president last summer that got him impeached .
In fact , there were almost no test kits to speak of .
I wrote at the time that it was incumbent on the media to step up and enable our nation ’ s smartest people to set the agenda , rather than waiting for the White House to do it .
When it became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t nearly enough tests , he urged people who weren ’ t showing symptoms not to get one .
These days – now that the U.S. has finally tested more people than South Korea ( although not even close to more people per capita ) — he is bragging again .
On Wednesday , he said : “ We have tested , by far , more than anybody .
We ’ re testing more than anybody right now .
There ’ s nobody even close .
And our tests are the best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christian asked Trump a great question that day .
Citing comments by Ashish Jha , the coauthor of the Atlantic article reference above , Christian asked Trump whether he agreed that “ the key to getting this economy open as soon as possible is to test everyone who needs testing so we can quarantine all infected individuals and allow everyone else to go back to work immediately.
” Trump , who probably didn ’ t understand the question , came out against testing everyone – which is not what Jha called for .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it ’ s confined to certain areas , high-density areas , ” Trump said .
“ So why would we test the entire nation — 350 [ million ] people ?
” Trump on Thursday sent a letter to governors , claiming that federal officials are gathering testing data that will suggest guidelines categorizing counties as “ high risk , medium risk or low risk ” for the virus .
In the letter , he promised “ robust surveillance testing , which allows us to monitor the spread of the virus throughout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no sign of that happening — and no sign of a clear plan to make it happen — so don ’ t believe a word of it .
As Philip Bump put it , somewhat more gently , for the Washington Post : Big Journalism is finally doing a better job of calling out Trump ’ s lies and ignorance , but too many reporters and editors are still letting him determine what they cover .
Perhaps even more important , the pace and rhythm of Trump ’ s reality-show presidency – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment , and maybe , just maybe , about what ’ s on tomorrow — has gotten them out of the habit of looking ahead , in this case to how the season ends .
Reporters could and should change that by relentlessly asking questions at Trump ’ s briefings and elsewhere about how we will know when it is safe to come out again .
They should demand answers .
They should put that crucial context in every story .
And we should measure everything that he and his administration do relative @ @ @ @

There’s a clear path out of this crisis, and Donald Trump isn’t taking it.
Journalists should be demanding to know why not.
Public-health experts, if you ask them, will tell you that the only way life will return to something like normal is if the government initiates widespread, quick-turnaround, publicly-reported testing for the coronavirus – not just of the sick or scared, but of cross sections of every community.
That’s the only way we’ll know if it’s safe to come out again.
Almost everything that happens in the short term should be measured against that goal.
Especially with Trump expressing growing impatience and denial — hinting that he’ll encourage many Americans to venture out again by Easter Sunday, with possibly cataclysmic consequences — the questions reporters should be asking at every White House briefing and of every official and public-health expert are: How can we know when it’s safe to come out again? When will that happen? And what are you doing about it?
Where things stand
To understand how we end this crisis, we have to start at the beginning. As soon as COVID-19 landed on our shores, the government should have responded by testing anyone who might have been infected, and isolating those who tested positive.
Instead, the virus was left to spread entirely out of control.
Now, it’s out there. We don’t know precisely where, so it feels like it’s everywhere.
We have a pretty good idea where it’s concentrated — at least so far — but we don’t know where it’s absent.
So we don’t know how to stay away and stay safe.
Public-health experts say they hope that our current social distancing regime will slow the spread of the virus and buy us enough time to do what we should have done in the first place: Test and isolate, albeit on a much bigger scale than would have been necessary if we’d caught it early.
But is the government even working toward that goal? There are few signs.
What needs to be done? And what are the metrics for success?
That’s what we need to know. And that’s what journalists we need to be asking, every day.
We have a playbook
We recently learned that Trump failed to follow the “pandemic playbook” left to him by the Obama administration, with obviously disastrous consequences.
Imagine if the media had found a copy of that playbook early on, and could have held Trump accountable to it! The coverage would have been vastly better and more effective.
Now, of course, what we need is a “once you’ve screwed up the pandemic here’s what to do playbook,” so the media can use that to hold Trump accountable.
And guess what? A recent Atlantic article by Aaron E. Carroll, a professor of pediatrics at the Indiana University School of Medicine, and Ashish Jha, a professor of global health at Harvard University, is a reasonable substitute.
The way to stop the spread is actually quite simple, they wrote:
To achieve this, we need to test many, many people, even those without symptoms. Testing will allow us to isolate the infected so they can’t infect others. We need to be vigilant, and willing to quarantine people with absolute diligence.
But there’s a problem:
Because we failed to set up a testing infrastructure, we can’t check that many people. At the moment, we can’t even test everyone who is sick.
So here’s how we avoid a choice between “millions of deaths or a wrecked society,” Carroll and Jha wrote:
We could develop tests that are fast, reliable, and ubiquitous. If we screen everyone, and do so regularly, we can let most people return to a more normal life. We can reopen schools and places where people gather. If we can be assured that the people who congregate aren’t infectious, they can socialize. We can build health-care facilities that do rapid screening and care for people who are infected, apart from those who are not. This will prevent transmission from one sick person to another in hospitals and other health-care facilities. We can even commit to housing infected people apart from their healthy family members, to prevent transmission in households.
So there you have it.
Lots of other experts agree. In a Washington Post opinion piece titled “When will it be safe to go out again?” Tom Frieden, a former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the answer if for there to be “widespread testing, rapid and effective contact tracing, isolation of patients and quarantine of contacts,” with a particular emphasis on “rapid-turnaround-time tests.” He concluded:
The Trump administration squandered the lead time provided by Chinese disease control efforts and its own travel ban. We can’t afford to make that mistake again.
New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie boiled down our current situation particularly well:
If the United States had the strict testing regime of South Korea or Taiwan — if it knew the full extent of the outbreak and had the resources to selectively quarantine the sick and the contagious — then you could imagine a return to normalcy in the next month or so, as most people began to go back to work and the vulnerable stayed home. But that is an unlikely, best-case scenario, more dream world than reality. What is actually happening is that we don’t know how many Americans are sick or how many are asymptomatic. We aren’t quite flying blind, but without more tests we can’t see very clearly either. What we do know is that we have a fast-growing caseload that implies that there are many more infections than what’s in the official numbers so far. To relax restrictions in this environment is to guarantee greater spread of the disease and higher death tolls
The “difficult actions we are taking now,” as Carroll and Jha put it, basically just buy us time.
The media needs to be pushing government officials at all levels to stop wasting that time.
A whole new kind of testing
A lot of reporting about testing so far has been misguided. For one the numerators — in this case, meaning the number of positive test results — don’t mean much if you don’t know what the denominators are. And the denominators — how many people are being tested, and under what circumstances — are changing faster than the numerators, and differ immensely from place to place. We know things are going very badly, in terms of the overall direction, but that’s about it.
Secondly, we’re only hearing about diagnostic tests — tests that are basically used on sick people to determine what kind of medical help they need.
But in order for us to find out when and where it will be safe to go out again, we need what is called “surveillance” testing.
In a recent appearance on the Deep State Radio podcast, journalist and pandemic expert Laurie Garrett talked about the bizarre – and insufficiently questioned – lack of emphasis on surveillance testing in the government’s current planning. Consider:
One problem that we have in the United States is a lot of public confusion and politician confusion about testing in the sense that there’s two different kinds of testing and they actually should not physically be the same tests. One kind is diagnostic: That is, are you infected? Do we need to rush you to the intensive care unit right now? And that diagnostic test has to be incredibly accurate…. America’s whole thrust is about diagnostic testing, which is most appropriately executed in a medical setting. Then there’s another kind of test — surveillance testing — that can be a lot sloppier, but it needs to be a lot faster, cheaper and easier to do. And surveillance testing is the sort of key to the gumshoe detective work of tracking any epidemic…. You know, what age group is most at risk, who’s spreading it to whom… And we don’t have a surveillance tool as far as I know at this moment. Nobody’s really seriously even developing one. There’s not a lot of money thrown to it. It’s for reasons that absolutely defy my imagination. It seems to have escaped the entire CDC and national government’s radar scope. So what that means is that we’re going into this epidemic flying as blind as possible. It’s like trying to land a plane when your radar is broken and there’s a fog bank ahead. We’re heading for the landing strip. We know it’s somewhere over there. We just hope we don’t hit any buildings as we come down.
Lindsay F. Wiley, who teaches public health law at the American University’s law school, explained in a must-read Twitter thread:
The population-level (ideally random-sample) testing of mildly symptomatic & asymptomatic cases we need to ID hotspots before hospitals become overwhelmed & target the public health response is a completely separate thing from clinical screening of the very ill…. To have any hope of getting out ahead of this virus in places where it isn’t already too late, to deploy critical healthcare resources to the places they’ll be needed most, we have to implement surveillance… Distancing can be eased slowly, using testing data. We have to continuously test/monitor to detect if/when community transmission returns.
Talk to someone who got it right
With Trump using his bully pulpit to spew drivel, lies, and flimflam, it’s more important than ever for journalists to give voice to the experts. So let’s hear what one has to say.
When I turn to experts, I try to find someone who was right when a lot of other people were wrong. That’s why I called Jennifer Nuzzo.
Nuzzo, an epidemiologist and expert in disease outbreak detection and response at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, testified to Congress on Feb. 5. That was just a week after Trump blocked some travel from China – the singular achievement that he clings to as having proven his mettle as a “wartime president,” earning him a “10” out of 10 for his response to the coronavirus crisis.
Nuzzo said it wouldn’t work. Here’s the transcript; here’s the video. Here’s what she said:
These measures are unlikely to keep the virus out of our country. The virus is spreading too quickly and too quietly for us to possibly know where all cases are. We do not have a complete picture of where in the world the virus is spreading to be able to stop infected people from coming to the U.S. It is also possible that unrecognized infections are occurring in U.S.
She was correct on all counts. She then explained that it was a distraction from more necessary measures:
Instead of trying to implement measures that likely will not work to prevent the virus from entering our country, we should focus on efforts that we know will help to lessen its impacts, such as ensuring that federal, state and local health agencies, and hospitals and health clinics have the resources they need to diagnose, isolate and safely treat cases, and to promote feasible approaches to community mitigation that are most likely to mitigate disease spread. For this we will need government leadership and additional investments.
None of those things happened. Exactly as she suggested, Trump’s action made us less safe.
Now, Nuzzo is focusing on how we get out of this mess.
Yes! Social distancing is necessary now, but not a long-term strategy. We must devote equal energy to developing resources to support next phase. We need enhanced case identification and isolation. This will require expanded diagnostic capabilities, PPE, and contact tracing. https://t.co/AGKCY1TbDA — Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH (@JenniferNuzzo) March 24, 2020
The most urgent problem, Nuzzo told me in a phone interview, is getting sufficient personal protective equipment for the doctors, nurses and other medical workers who are putting themselves on the line.
But almost as urgent, she said, is the need to expand testing. “We need to do a better job of finding cases,” she said. “We have no idea where we are in the curve.”
Singapore, she pointed out, was able to avoid the kind of shutdown we’re experiencing here because authorities there acted quickly to find people who had the virus, trace their contacts, and isolate the sick so the healthy could continue to go about their business.
It’s too late for us to do that now, Nuzzo said. “But if we get our case numbers down through these various measures that we’re taking, then we maybe have a hope of starting to do that again.”
Nuzzo added that although state and local officials have taken the lead in so many areas, this is one area where the White House needs to lead. “We can’t take a federalist approach to this,” she said. “We need a national approach.”
What other countries can teach us
Nuzzo mentioned Singapore because what we didn’t do – in comparison to countries that responded quickly and successfully — informs what we still have a chance to do, going forward. Journalists should constantly keep that in mind.
As Helen Branswell wrote for STAT News:
Singapore… quickly developed a much-needed serology test — a blood test used to look for antibodies in blood that are a sign of previous infection. Getting a handle on how many people have been infected is critical to understanding how deadly this virus really is, experts stress.
Matt Apuzzo and Selam Gebrekidan wrote in the New York Times:
Australia, Korea and Singapore turned to networks of public and private laboratories to develop tests. On Feb. 4, the South Korean government granted fast-track approval for a company’s coronavirus test and began shipping kits. A second company was approved a week later. Two more soon followed…. When Australia identified its first coronavirus patient in late January, political leaders made clear that testing would be widespread. …. South Korea opened nearly 600 testing clinics, including dozens of drive-through stations.
For now, one of the few places in the U.S. where people can get a quick serology test is in Southern California’s Little Saigon. Scott Schwebke and Teri Sforza wrote in the Orange County Register about a local doctor offering a finger-prick test that provides results in 10 minutes.
Where did they come from? This doctor imported thousands of the tests from South Korea.
Blood tests spot antibodies in people who have had the virus, while the cotton-swab-up-the-nose tests detect active disease. So they serve different purposes. But to help officials ascertain the extent of the virus’s spread — for surveillance testing — the quick and easy one has huge advantages.
Meanwhile, at the White House
To say that Trump doesn’t get any of this would be a dramatic understatement.
Back on March 6, in one of his most dazzling displays of ignorance, deceit and delusion, Trump insisted, repeatedly, that “Anybody that wants a test can get a test. That’s what the bottom line is.” He called the theoretically omnipresent test kits “beautiful” and said they were as “perfect” as the phone call with the Ukrainian president last summer that got him impeached.
In fact, there were almost no test kits to speak of.
I wrote at the time that it was incumbent on the media to step up and enable our nation’s smartest people to set the agenda, rather than waiting for the White House to do it.
When it became clear even to Trump that there weren’t nearly enough tests, he urged people who weren’t showing symptoms not to get one.
These days – now that the U.S. has finally tested more people than South Korea (although not even close to more people per capita) — he is bragging again. On Wednesday, he said: “We have tested, by far, more than anybody. We’re testing more than anybody right now. There’s nobody even close. And our tests are the best tests.”
A freelance reporter named Doug Christian asked Trump a great question that day. Citing comments by Ashish Jha, the coauthor of the Atlantic article reference above, Christian asked Trump whether he agreed that “the key to getting this economy open as soon as possible is to test everyone who needs testing so we can quarantine all infected individuals and allow everyone else to go back to work immediately.”
Trump, who probably didn’t understand the question, came out against testing everyone – which is not what Jha called for. “We have some big problems, but it’s confined to certain areas, high-density areas,” Trump said. “So why would we test the entire nation — 350 [million] people?”
Trump on Thursday sent a letter to governors, claiming that federal officials are gathering testing data that will suggest guidelines categorizing counties as “high risk, medium risk or low risk” for the virus.
In the letter, he promised “robust surveillance testing, which allows us to monitor the spread of the virus throughout the country”.
But there’s no sign of that happening — and no sign of a clear plan to make it happen — so don’t believe a word of it. As Philip Bump put it, somewhat more gently, for the Washington Post:
What Trump’s letter implies is that a robust testing regimen and subsequent assessments of the country are required to relax the distancing restrictions — a goal he says he’d like to see in effect to some extent in 16 days. That seems unlikely. The question, then, is which gives: the testing regimen or the timeline?
Big Journalism is finally doing a better job of calling out Trump’s lies and ignorance, but too many reporters and editors are still letting him determine what they cover. Perhaps even more important, the pace and rhythm of Trump’s reality-show presidency – where it’s all about the moment, and maybe, just maybe, about what’s on tomorrow — has gotten them out of the habit of looking ahead, in this case to how the season ends.
Reporters could and should change that by relentlessly asking questions at Trump’s briefings and elsewhere about how we will know when it is safe to come out again. They should demand answers. They should put that crucial context in every story. And we should measure everything that he and his administration do relative to that goal.


presswatchers--2020-03-25--How to turn Trump’s daily virus misinformation show into a vector for the truth

The nation ’ s most eminent media critics are virtually unanimous that television networks should stop the live broadcasting of the White House ’ s daily coronavirus briefings , which Donald Trump has turned into a torrent of dangerous lies , misinformation and self-aggrandizement .
I totally agree that the broadcast networks shouldn ’ t break into regular programming to show the briefings live anymore .
Watching them , unfiltered , makes their viewers dumber and less safe .
But I think the cable news networks would do well to keep the cameras rolling live – as long as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And I mean major .
Why show them ?
When the president of the United States gathers experts to his side and holds a briefing on a life-threatening public-health emergency the likes of which none of us have ever seen before , that ’ s news .
It ’ s news that has immediacy .
People who are into news deserve to hear it live .
These are not political rallies , or spin sessions , or even normal press briefings .
These are urgent , emergency communications .
And if — rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , expressions of empathy and reasoned optimism — Trump lies , spreads misinformation and toots his own horn during these emergency communications , that is the news .
Each and every time he does it .
So rather than hide what ’ s happening , news organizations should respond by doing journalism – in this case , some journalistic jujitsu .
When Trump spreads misinformation , the networks need to show viewers , in real time , the correct information .
When he lies and contradicts himself , they need to provide the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he puffs himself up , they need to remind viewers of his massive failures .
What I ’ m talking about is more than just fact-checking .
It ’ s also reality-checking and gaslighting-fighting .
Let ’ s be real : This won ’ t be easy .
Up until now , real-time video fact-checking has been a bridge too far for the networks .
It would require an all-hands-on-deck approach to sustain the fact-based firepower necessary to offset Trump ’ s firehose of falsehoods .
It would require splitting the screen in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not now , when ?
And , to be honest , there ’ s so much social-media-fueled real-time truth-squadding of the briefings already , the networks have a massive head start .
Another advantage is that the briefings have become so predictable , with Trump endlessly repeating the same falsehoods and self-puffery .
Indeed , CNN ’ s wonderful Daniel Dale recently broke them down into their fairly consistent constituent parts , each of which can be anticipated and prepared for : • False pronouncements that this was all unforeseen In addition to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should prepare viewers before the briefing with a preview of the misinformation and lies likely to come .
And right after , they should summarize what was said that was accurate , and correct what was said that was not .
Trump lies because why not ?
Do you have a child ?
Even if you don ’ t , you are certainly familiar with the concept of positive and negative consequences .
Right now , when Trump lies , the only consequences are positive – his base gets just that much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true , the split screen can reinforce that .
When he says something false , the split screen can correct him .
When he fails to answer a question , the split screen can call him on it .
When he says something completely contradictory to something he said before , the split screen can quote him .
When he answers a question in a way that demonstrates he has no idea what he is talking about , the split screen can explain what seems to be missing .
How does that play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argues – based on “ just a feeling ” — that chloroquine could be a “ game-changer ” in treating the virus , the split screen could warn viewers not to take the drug ; that its effectiveness is entirely speculative ; that it can have serious medical consequences ; and that it an example of Trump ’ s wishful thinking .
When Trump says that his decision to limit visitors from China was “ weeks early ” – and on account of that , rates his response a “ 10 ” – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump was warned about coronavirus by Health and Human Services secretary Alex Azar on January 18 , at the very latest ; that beyond blocking visitors from China on January 31 , he did nothing for weeks but downplay it ; and that early testing would have dramatically reduced the spread of the virus .
When Trump talks about “ reopening ” swaths of the country by Easter , the split screen could note how this flies in the face of what medical experts are saying and what governors are doing .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s history of tragically bad predictions , among them “ We have it totally under control , ” ( January 22 ) and “ the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero , that ’ s a pretty good job we ’ ve done.
” ( February 26 . )
We need to stop editing him The public must get a chance to hear how Trump talks , because , as I wrote on February 27 , Big media is covering up Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
More often than not , mainstream reporting on even the most incoherent and contradictory Trump briefing consists of cherry-picking quotes that make him sound coherent , and in no way whatsoever indicate the true nature of the lunacy .
To some degree , we ’ re getting the worse of both worlds right now .
When Trump says something outrageous , the media unthinkingly broadcasts it live – then ignores it .
As Tom Jones , the media writer for Poynter.org , argues : Here ’ s what David Boardman , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school of communication , tweeted recently : Indeed , on Monday , Trump ’ s frequent references to the deadliness of the flu and car accidents was an unmistakable sign to anyone watching that he was trying to devalue individual human lives as part of his rationalization for relaxing public-health restrictions .
But that was lost in the mainstream press coverage which , like this New York Times story , quoted him but completely failed to connect the dots the way that people who listened to the whole thing almost certainly did .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ funny thing is that the corporate media is under no illusions about Trump – and though you can ’ t always see it in the news stories , you sure can see it in the news analyses .
CNN and MSNBC would be on safe ground using language from , say , the New York Times or the Associated Press on their split screens , right ?
Well , Times star reporters Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman , recently mentioned some of the traits that Trump regularly puts on display in these briefings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ praise , the propensity to blame others , the lack of human empathy , the penchant for rewriting history , the disregard for expertise , the distortion of facts , the impatience with scrutiny or criticism.
” You could take this part of their story and just put it up right next to his face : Or this part for when Pence comes on : Similarly , Jonathan Lemire , Jill Colvin and Zeke Miller recently wrote an outstanding analysis for the Associated Press expanding on how Trump “ has never been known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” CNN or MSNBC could mine it for any number of valuable split-screen audience alerts .
For instance , they wrote : “ the president frequently gets in the way of health professionals trying to chart a course of action.
” Or : “ Trump has been missing the spotlight and has told people that he knows the nation is watching the briefings and doesn ’ t want to give up the stage.
” Alternately , CNN could turn to its own treasure , the aforementioned Daniel Dale , using as a guide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has turned the briefings “ into a kind of special spinoff of the familiar Trump Show — replete with all the usual misinformation , self-promotion and potshots.
” Heck , they could just plug his vital Twitter feed right into the split screen .
It could get great ratings Whichever network does this first could win over a big audience .
As Michael M. Grynbaum wrote in the New York Times on Wednesday , the briefings are a ratings hit : Fox News , not surprisingly , attracts the most viewers by far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could amass the viewers who watch , not in belief but in disbelief .
Or don ’ t show it at all My preference is for a live feed of the Trump briefings , featuring a diligently curated split screen that holds him accountable for his deceit and deficiencies .
But if that ’ s not going to happen , then yes , I agree with my colleagues who have said that the networks should stop airing them live .
Their arguments are incredibly strong .
NYU journalism professor and noted media critic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the press corps suspend normal relations with the Trump White House .
Last week , he encouraged newsroom leaders to shift to an emergency setting because , at a moment of life and death , “ the single most potent force for misinforming the American public is the current president of the United States.
” Rosen urged news organizations to pledge , among other things : Washington Post media writer Margaret Sullivan noted that Trump “ is using his daily briefings as a substitute for the campaign rallies that have been forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ novel coronavirus.
” Many top media executives , in retrospect , realized that airing Trump ’ s campaign rallies in 2016 – in their entirety , without viewer warnings — was a horrendous mistake .
Sullivan argued that , at this point : Atlantic national correspondent James Fallows called on cable-news executives “ to reflect on the path they are headed down.
” He explained : “ If the president does end up saying anything true , you can run it as tape , ” Maddow said on her program .
“ But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day on stuff this important , all of us should stop broadcasting it .
Honestly , it ’ s gon na cost lives.
” And MSNBC did actually cut away toward the end of the Monday briefing .
Boston Globe columnist Michael A. Cohen wrote that he generally considers sunshine is the best disinfectant .
The briefings shouldn ’ t even be happening If you believe the briefings shouldn ’ t be on TV , then I would argue that your biggest beef should be with the fact that they ’ re being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be demanding that public-health officials hold a daily , technical briefing for medical reporters , and that White House briefings be limited to urgent announcements .
As the New York Times ’ s legendary health reporter Donald G. McNeil Jr. wrote recently , public-health experts are “ united in the opinion that politicians must step aside and let scientists both lead the effort to contain the virus and explain to Americans what must be done ” : Then again , maybe one action would follow the other .
As Fallows wrote for @ @ @

The nation’s most eminent media critics are virtually unanimous that television networks should stop the live broadcasting of the White House’s daily coronavirus briefings, which Donald Trump has turned into a torrent of dangerous lies, misinformation and self-aggrandizement.
I totally agree that the broadcast networks shouldn’t break into regular programming to show the briefings live anymore. Watching them, unfiltered, makes their viewers dumber and less safe.
But I think the cable news networks would do well to keep the cameras rolling live – as long as they make some major changes in presentation. And I mean major.
Why show them? When the president of the United States gathers experts to his side and holds a briefing on a life-threatening public-health emergency the likes of which none of us have ever seen before, that’s news. It’s news that has immediacy. People who are into news deserve to hear it live.
These are not political rallies, or spin sessions, or even normal press briefings. These are urgent, emergency communications.
And if — rather than sharing credible updates, thoughtful guidance, expressions of empathy and reasoned optimism — Trump lies, spreads misinformation and toots his own horn during these emergency communications, that is the news. Each and every time he does it.
Time to split the screen
So rather than hide what’s happening, news organizations should respond by doing journalism – in this case, some journalistic jujitsu.
When Trump spreads misinformation, the networks need to show viewers, in real time, the correct information. When he lies and contradicts himself, they need to provide the necessary context as he speaks. When he puffs himself up, they need to remind viewers of his massive failures.
What I’m talking about is more than just fact-checking. It’s also reality-checking and gaslighting-fighting.
Let’s be real: This won’t be easy. Up until now, real-time video fact-checking has been a bridge too far for the networks. It would require an all-hands-on-deck approach to sustain the fact-based firepower necessary to offset Trump’s firehose of falsehoods. It would require splitting the screen in a whole new way.
But if not now, when? And, to be honest, there’s so much social-media-fueled real-time truth-squadding of the briefings already, the networks have a massive head start.
He’s so predictable
Another advantage is that the briefings have become so predictable, with Trump endlessly repeating the same falsehoods and self-puffery. Indeed, CNN’s wonderful Daniel Dale recently broke them down into their fairly consistent constituent parts, each of which can be anticipated and prepared for:
Inaccurate progress reports
False, dubious or questionable medical claims
False pronouncements that this was all unforeseen
Media-bashing
Vague economic cheerleading
An empathy shortage
Self-promotion, complaints of victimhood
Trump being Trump
In addition to the real-time split-screen annotation, network anchors should prepare viewers before the briefing with a preview of the misinformation and lies likely to come. And right after, they should summarize what was said that was accurate, and correct what was said that was not.
Trump lies because why not?
Do you have a child? Even if you don’t, you are certainly familiar with the concept of positive and negative consequences.
Right now, when Trump lies, the only consequences are positive – his base gets just that much more fired up.
Real-time split-screen bullshit-calling is a negative consequence.
It is real accountability.
When Trump says something true, the split screen can reinforce that.
When he says something false, the split screen can correct him.
When he fails to answer a question, the split screen can call him on it.
When he says something completely contradictory to something he said before, the split screen can quote him.
When he answers a question in a way that demonstrates he has no idea what he is talking about, the split screen can explain what seems to be missing.
How does that play out in real life?
For example:
When Trump argues – based on “just a feeling” — that chloroquine could be a “game-changer” in treating the virus, the split screen could warn viewers not to take the drug; that its effectiveness is entirely speculative; that it can have serious medical consequences; and that it an example of Trump’s wishful thinking.
When Trump says that his decision to limit visitors from China was “weeks early” – and on account of that, rates his response a “10” – the split screen could remind viewers that Trump was warned about coronavirus by Health and Human Services secretary Alex Azar on January 18, at the very latest; that beyond blocking visitors from China on January 31, he did nothing for weeks but downplay it; and that early testing would have dramatically reduced the spread of the virus.
When Trump talks about “reopening” swaths of the country by Easter, the split screen could note how this flies in the face of what medical experts are saying and what governors are doing. The split screen could also recount Trump’s history of tragically bad predictions, among them “We have it totally under control,” (January 22) and “the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done.” (February 26.)
We need to stop editing him
The public must get a chance to hear how Trump talks, because, as I wrote on February 27, Big media is covering up Trump’s terrifying incoherence in a time of emergency.
More often than not, mainstream reporting on even the most incoherent and contradictory Trump briefing consists of cherry-picking quotes that make him sound coherent, and in no way whatsoever indicate the true nature of the lunacy.
To some degree, we’re getting the worse of both worlds right now. When Trump says something outrageous, the media unthinkingly broadcasts it live – then ignores it.
As Tom Jones, the media writer for Poynter.org, argues:
[I]f we don’t air Trump’s words in full, it’s easy to argue that the media is actually protecting him by not showing his irresponsible side. At that point, only the good parts would get through and that, perhaps, would give the indication that he’s handling this well even if he is not. Isn’t that dangerous not only for the short-term, but the long-term health of the country?
Here’s what David Boardman, the esteemed dean of Temple University’s school of communication, tweeted recently:
This Monday @realdonaldtrump press conference is exactly why we SHOULD keep casting these dog-and-pony shows. The American people need to see how their president weighs saving human lives vs. reopening the floor of the NYSE to traders. — David Boardman (@dlboardman) March 23, 2020
Indeed, on Monday, Trump’s frequent references to the deadliness of the flu and car accidents was an unmistakable sign to anyone watching that he was trying to devalue individual human lives as part of his rationalization for relaxing public-health restrictions.
But that was lost in the mainstream press coverage which, like this New York Times story, quoted him but completely failed to connect the dots the way that people who listened to the whole thing almost certainly did.
The split screens could be brutal
The funny thing is that the corporate media is under no illusions about Trump – and though you can’t always see it in the news stories, you sure can see it in the news analyses.
CNN and MSNBC would be on safe ground using language from, say, the New York Times or the Associated Press on their split screens, right?
Well, Times star reporters Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman, recently mentioned some of the traits that Trump regularly puts on display in these briefings: “the profound need for personal praise, the propensity to blame others, the lack of human empathy, the penchant for rewriting history, the disregard for expertise, the distortion of facts, the impatience with scrutiny or criticism.”
You could take this part of their story and just put it up right next to his face:
[E]ven as he has seemed to take the crisis more seriously, Mr. Trump has continued to make statements that conflicted with the government’s own public health experts and focused energy on blaming China, quarreling with reporters, claiming he knew that the coronavirus would be a pandemic even when he was minimizing its threat only a few weeks ago and congratulating himself for how he has managed a crisis he only recently acknowledged.
Or this part for when Pence comes on:
Officials have learned that the president craves a constant diet of flattery, which they serve up during daily televised briefings.
Similarly, Jonathan Lemire, Jill Colvin and Zeke Miller recently wrote an outstanding analysis for the Associated Press expanding on how Trump “has never been known for his patience or long attention span.”
CNN or MSNBC could mine it for any number of valuable split-screen audience alerts.
For instance, they wrote: “the president frequently gets in the way of health professionals trying to chart a course of action.”
Or: “Trump has been missing the spotlight and has told people that he knows the nation is watching the briefings and doesn’t want to give up the stage.”
Alternately, CNN could turn to its own treasure, the aforementioned Daniel Dale, using as a guide his recent article about how home-bound Trump has turned the briefings “into a kind of special spinoff of the familiar Trump Show — replete with all the usual misinformation, self-promotion and potshots.” Heck, they could just plug his vital Twitter feed right into the split screen.
It could get great ratings
Whichever network does this first could win over a big audience. As Michael M. Grynbaum wrote in the New York Times on Wednesday, the briefings are a ratings hit:
Mr. Trump and his coronavirus updates have attracted an average audience of 8.5 million on cable news, roughly the viewership of the season finale of “The Bachelor.” And the numbers are continuing to rise, driven by intense concern about the virus and the housebound status of millions of Americans who are practicing social distancing. On Monday, nearly 12.2 million people watched Mr. Trump’s briefing on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC, according to Nielsen — “Monday Night Football” numbers. Millions more are watching on ABC, CBS, NBC and online streaming sites. (Because of the way Nielsen ratings are measured, reliable numbers are available only for cable news.) And the audience is expanding even as Mr. Trump has repeatedly delivered information that doctors and public health officials have called ill informed, misleading or downright wrong.
Fox News, not surprisingly, attracts the most viewers by far. But imagine if some other network could amass the viewers who watch, not in belief but in disbelief.
Or don’t show it at all
My preference is for a live feed of the Trump briefings, featuring a diligently curated split screen that holds him accountable for his deceit and deficiencies.
But if that’s not going to happen, then yes, I agree with my colleagues who have said that the networks should stop airing them live. Their arguments are incredibly strong.
NYU journalism professor and noted media critic Jay Rosen has been advocating for years that the press corps suspend normal relations with the Trump White House. Last week, he encouraged newsroom leaders to shift to an emergency setting because, at a moment of life and death, “the single most potent force for misinforming the American public is the current president of the United States.”
Rosen urged news organizations to pledge, among other things:
We will not cover live any speech, rally, or press conference involving the president. The risk of passing along bad information is too great. Instead, we will attend carefully to what he says. If we can independently verify any important news he announces we will bring that to you— after the verification step.
Washington Post media writer Margaret Sullivan noted that Trump “is using his daily briefings as a substitute for the campaign rallies that have been forced into extinction by the spread of the novel coronavirus.”
Many top media executives, in retrospect, realized that airing Trump’s campaign rallies in 2016 – in their entirety, without viewer warnings — was a horrendous mistake.
Sullivan argued that, at this point:
Trump has proved, time after time, that he doesn’t care about truth, that he puts his financial and political self-interest above that of the public, and that he has no understanding of the role of the press in a democracy. And now lives are on the line. The news media, at this dangerous and unprecedented moment in world history, must put the highest priority on getting truthful information to the public. Taking Trump’s press conferences as a live feed works against that core purpose.
Atlantic national correspondent James Fallows called on cable-news executives “to reflect on the path they are headed down.” He explained:
From Trump’s point of view, it makes sense to turn these events into the unfiltered airtime he used to count on at mass rallies. From the media’s point of view, it made sense to cover the first few of them live. But given the rising falsehood quotient in what Trump says, and his determination to cut off or divert questioners who try to ask about these falsehoods, cable networks should stop airing these as live spectacles and instead report, afterwards, with clips of things Trump and others said, and whether they were true.
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow challenged her own network’s practices:
Maddow: If Trump is going to keep lying like he has been every day on stuff this important, we should, all of us, stop broadcasting it. Honestly, it's going to cost lives. pic.twitter.com/tMvyrE3YTK — Maddow Blog (@MaddowBlog) March 21, 2020
“If the president does end up saying anything true, you can run it as tape,” Maddow said on her program. “But if he keeps lying like this every day on stuff this important, all of us should stop broadcasting it. Honestly, it’s gonna cost lives.”
And MSNBC did actually cut away toward the end of the Monday briefing.
Boston Globe columnist Michael A. Cohen wrote that he generally considers sunshine is the best disinfectant.
But these are not ordinary times and this is no ordinary president. After more than three years in office — and more than 16,000 false or misleading statements — Trump’s word simply cannot be trusted. At a moment of true national cataclysm, allowing him to use the bully pulpit in such an irresponsible manner is a risk we can’t afford to take.… News outlets should thus treat Trump’s public statements like propaganda and misinformation — because that’s what they are. Fact-checking is essential, but it’s not enough. Airing his press conferences live, without immediate correction — which, because of the volume of Trump’s lies, is almost impossible to pull off — risks letting false information trickle out to the public.
Andy Kroll wrote in Rolling Stone:
It’s time to stop carrying his coronavirus briefings live. Cover them, edit out the bad information, and give the American people only the essential information (such as Dr. Fauci’s warnings and updates) that they need to deal with the crisis. To continue to air them in real-time, unedited, is to actively confuse and mislead the American public.
The briefings shouldn’t even be happening
If you believe the briefings shouldn’t be on TV, then I would argue that your biggest beef should be with the fact that they’re being held at all.
I think journalists should be demanding that public-health officials hold a daily, technical briefing for medical reporters, and that White House briefings be limited to urgent announcements.
As the New York Times’s legendary health reporter Donald G. McNeil Jr. wrote recently, public-health experts are “united in the opinion that politicians must step aside and let scientists both lead the effort to contain the virus and explain to Americans what must be done”:
The microphone should not even be at the White House, scientists said, so that briefings of historic importance do not dissolve into angry, politically charged exchanges with the press corps, as happened again on Friday. Instead, leaders must describe the looming crisis and the possible solutions in ways that will win the trust of Americans. Above all, the experts said, briefings should focus on saving lives and making sure that average wage earners survive the coming hard times — not on the stock market, the tourism industry or the president’s health. There is no time left to point fingers and assign blame.
Then again, maybe one action would follow the other. As Fallows wrote for the Atlantic:
[A]s a practical matter, if the briefings were no longer covered live, Trump would lose interest in attending himself. Then the scientists could come back on stage—and eventually they could be covered live again.
(Won’t you make a contribution to keep Press Watch going? Thanks!)