presswatchers--2020-04-15--Trump’s pitiful obsession with a deadline is everything that’s wrong with everything

Donald Trump ’ s fixation on setting a deadline for “ reopening ” the country – first it was Easter Sunday , now it appears to be May 1 – is currently the leading indicator of his complete lack of understanding of what is required from a government during a pandemic .
If the goal is to get society back to normal , you don ’ t announce a date and then try to justify it .
You set conditions that must be met , and then try to meet them .
Just look at what Gov .
Gavin Newsom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he unveiled a list of six goals that need to be achieved before local officials can begin letting residents go back to work and school .
Top of the list is that the community has enough routine and widespread testing to monitor its residents for coronavirus infection , has the ability to trace patients ’ recent contacts , and has ways to isolate or quarantine those who test positive or may have been exposed .
That is precisely what public-health officials have been saying is needed for weeks and weeks and weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which Big Journalism holds Trump accountable every single day .
And these are the most important questions the press should be asking at every single briefing : Have you established what conditions need to be met before parts of the country can start to lift their stay-at-home orders ?
What are you doing to help the states meet those conditions ?
How much progress are you making ?
A key subsidiary question : Since widespread testing is so essential – and some estimates are that we need millions of tests performed daily – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more people every day ?
Why is the daily testing rate over the last two weeks essentially flat ?
That should be setting off alarm bells .
Everything else – which date is Trump settled on ?
Did he really mean it when he talked smack about his “ absolute authority ” ?
Did he mean it when he seemed to back off ?
Why is he attacking the World Health Organization ?
What is Jared up to ?
– is a distraction .
That doesn ’ t mean these other stories don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most certainly do .
But just because they seem newsy , it doesn ’ t mean they ’ re the biggest news , deserving the top of the page , the multiple analyses , and the star bylines .
The biggest news is : How much closer are we to getting back to normal ?
Or has Trump wasted yet another day ?
How much progress have we made ?
How much further do we need to go ?
Newsom ’ s announcement on Tuesday made the governor a useful point of comparison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported , Newsom announced that before allowing residents to return to work and school , local officials must be sure : • They have enough routine and widespread testing to monitor the population at large for coronavirus infections , and have the ability to trace patients ’ recent contacts and isolate or quarantine those who test positive or may have been exposed to someone who has the virus .
• They can protect the most vulnerable populations : those who are older , have underlying health issues , or are in crowded settings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• That the state ’ s health care system can handle surges , with enough ventilators , staff and personal protective equipment ready to go .
• That it has the best known treatment options identified and in proper supply to meet demand , and is working with academia , technology companies and medical researchers to develop more and better options .
• That businesses , schools , and child care facilities can function while keeping people at least six feet apart to limit coronavirus spread .
• Finally , that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the virus flares again .
Think about it .
That is quite a list .
And there ’ s not a state in the union that ’ s anywhere close .
In his remarks , Newsom made it clear that he is not setting any arbitrary deadlines : His announcement , he explained , was the result of “ a process that we ’ ve been having and that we ’ ve been engaged in for the last few weeks.
” It was time to “ basically pull back the curtain on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he said .
The next step is to hear back from the “ teams assembled in each of these six categories that are working to answer the questions.
” He ’ s never said anything remotely so direct about the way forward .
Instead , he predicts miracles .
Two weeks ago , for instance , he said we were due for “ a burst of light ” — right about now — after which things would “ get better all of a sudden.
” And whether he does it on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the instinctive behavior of a born showman , or whether it ’ s a symptom of his deeply compromised mental condition , Trump is constantly disgorging distractions — storylines so extreme , or bizarre , or repulsive , that the assembled press corps just can ’ t resist jumping all over them .
The result is that they are not holding him accountable , in real time , for his ongoing failures to act .
They are not pressing him to do better .
They are simply letting him blather on as people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more of my writing about media coverage of Trump and the coronavirus .
And please consider making a donation to keep Press Watch going .

Donald Trump’s fixation on setting a deadline for “reopening” the country – first it was Easter Sunday, now it appears to be May 1 – is currently the leading indicator of his complete lack of understanding of what is required from a government during a pandemic.
If the goal is to get society back to normal, you don’t announce a date and then try to justify it.
You set conditions that must be met, and then try to meet them.
Just look at what Gov. Gavin Newsom is doing in California. On Tuesday, he unveiled a list of six goals that need to be achieved before local officials can begin letting residents go back to work and school.
Top of the list is that the community has enough routine and widespread testing to monitor its residents for coronavirus infection, has the ability to trace patients’ recent contacts, and has ways to isolate or quarantine those who test positive or may have been exposed.
That is precisely what public-health officials have been saying is needed for weeks and weeks and weeks.
That should be the standard to which Big Journalism holds Trump accountable every single day.
And these are the most important questions the press should be asking at every single briefing: Have you established what conditions need to be met before parts of the country can start to lift their stay-at-home orders? What are you doing to help the states meet those conditions? How much progress are you making?
A key subsidiary question: Since widespread testing is so essential – and some estimates are that we need millions of tests performed daily – why aren’t we testing dramatically more people every day? Why is the daily testing rate over the last two weeks essentially flat? That should be setting off alarm bells.
Everything else – which date is Trump settled on? Did he really mean it when he talked smack about his “absolute authority”? Did he mean it when he seemed to back off? Why is he attacking the World Health Organization? What is Jared up to? – is a distraction.
That doesn’t mean these other stories don’t deserve some coverage – they most certainly do. But just because they seem newsy, it doesn’t mean they’re the biggest news, deserving the top of the page, the multiple analyses, and the star bylines.
The biggest news is: How much closer are we to getting back to normal? Or has Trump wasted yet another day?
How much progress have we made? How much further do we need to go?
Newsom’s announcement on Tuesday made the governor a useful point of comparison for Trump.
As the Associated Press reported, Newsom announced that before allowing residents to return to work and school, local officials must be sure:
They have enough routine and widespread testing to monitor the population at large for coronavirus infections, and have the ability to trace patients’ recent contacts and isolate or quarantine those who test positive or may have been exposed to someone who has the virus.
They can protect the most vulnerable populations: those who are older, have underlying health issues, or are in crowded settings like nursing homes, prisons or jails.
That the state’s health care system can handle surges, with enough ventilators, staff and personal protective equipment ready to go.
That it has the best known treatment options identified and in proper supply to meet demand, and is working with academia, technology companies and medical researchers to develop more and better options.
That businesses, schools, and child care facilities can function while keeping people at least six feet apart to limit coronavirus spread.
Finally, that they can quickly reimpose restrictions like stay-at-home orders if the virus flares again.
Think about it. That is quite a list. And there’s not a state in the union that’s anywhere close.
In his remarks, Newsom made it clear that he is not setting any arbitrary deadlines:
[T]his phase is one where science, where public health, not politics, must be the guide, where we must be open to argument interested in evidence, where we cannot be ideological in any way, shape or form in terms of how we approach a condition that changes on an hourly and daily basis, conditions that will ultimately determine what better decisions we make in terms of that transition.
His announcement, he explained, was the result of “a process that we’ve been having and that we’ve been engaged in for the last few weeks.” It was time to “basically pull back the curtain on those private conversations and make them public,” he said. The next step is to hear back from the “teams assembled in each of these six categories that are working to answer the questions.”
Compare that to Trump.
He’s never said anything remotely so direct about the way forward. Instead, he predicts miracles. Two weeks ago, for instance, he said we were due for “a burst of light” — right about now — after which things would “get better all of a sudden.”
And whether he does it on purpose, or whether it’s the instinctive behavior of a born showman, or whether it’s a symptom of his deeply compromised mental condition, Trump is constantly disgorging distractions — storylines so extreme, or bizarre, or repulsive, that the assembled press corps just can’t resist jumping all over them.
The result is that they are not holding him accountable, in real time, for his ongoing failures to act.
They are not pressing him to do better.
They are simply letting him blather on as people continue to hide and die.
Read more of my writing about media coverage of Trump and the coronavirus. And please consider making a donation to keep Press Watch going.


presswatchers--2020-04-14--CBS’s Paula Reid and CNN’s Kaitlan Collins pierced Trump’s bubble and he couldn’t handle it

It turns out there is a good reason for reporters to attend Donald Trump ’ s ridiculous , misinformation-spreading coronavirus news conferences .
It ’ s to confront him with reality – and let him flail wildly , melt down , and generally show the world he has no idea what he ’ s done or what he ’ s doing .
It ’ s to ask him simple questions that any competent leader could easily answer , and watch him have a temper tantrum .
So here is part of one exchange with CBS White House correspondent Paula Reid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Watch the video ) : Reid : What did you do with that time that you bought ?
The argument is that you bought yourself some time .
You didn ’ t use it to prepare hospitals .
You didn ’ t use it to ramp up testing .
Right now , nearly 20 million people are unemployed .
Trump : You ’ re so disgraceful .
It ’ s so disgraceful the way you say that… .
Reid : Tens of thousands of Americans are dead .
How is … this rant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an unprecedented crisis ?
… What did your administration do in February for the time that your travel ban bought you ?
Trump : A lot , and in fact , we ’ ll give you a list… .
We did a lot .
Look , look , you know you ’ re a fake .
Here is part of an exchange with CNN White House correspondent Kaitlin Collins ( watch the video ) : There were others , too .
Like when Trump was asked what he would do if governors defied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and it became clear that his talk about having “ total authority ” over everything was not a serious , considered assertion of extraconstitutional rights , it was just bluster .
“ Well if some states refuse to open , I would like to see that person run for election , ” he said .
To go or not to go Not long after Trump started holding his almost daily news conferences , it became clear that they were not really about relating important information during a crisis , but were instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misinformation .
Media critics and ethicists ( including me ) started arguing that television networks shouldn ’ t broadcast them live .
The other question that came up was whether reporters from major news organizations should even continue to attend , knowing that Trump would just use them as props .
Jay Rosen , the NYU journalism professor and widely respected media critic , argued that serious news organizations should refuse to assist him in spreading misinformation — which means not sending anyone .
“ I would not send reporters so he can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hate objects .
I would tell them to watch it on CSPAN and report any news that emerges .
If he makes a factual claim it has to be verified or no go , ” Rosen tweeted last week .
And in his Pressthink blog on Sunday , Rosen published a list of 13 reasons that he thinks make them keep coming back for more .
It is not an admirable list .
There ’ s the simplistic view that whatever the president says is news , no matter what .
There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re part of the presidency .
There ’ s the fact that it is such an easy and reliable way to create content .
There ’ s the overvaluing of access .
That ’ s four .
There are nine others , some better , some worse , and I highly recommend you go read them all .
But to my mind , Rosen left out the 14th – and only really good – reason for reporters to show up at the briefings .
It ’ s this : They are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bubble .
Every president exists within a bubble , but some more intentionally than others .
Trump — even more than George W. Bush , and that ’ s saying something — will not be caught dead in a room with people who don ’ t agree with him , with this one exception .
He doesn ’ t hold events that are open to the general public , only to supporters .
He doesn ’ t even invite Democrats to the signing of bills they collaborated on .
And his bubble is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reporters , allowed inside the bubble , have enormous public-service responsibilities – particularly during a major public-health crisis , and particularly with this president .
They alone can demand the answers the public needs and deserves .
And they alone can confront him with the reality that he denies .
As the late , legendary White House press corps veteran Helen Thomas explained it to me in 2004 : “ The presidential news conference is the only forum in our society in which the president can be questioned .
If he doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no accountability.… We speak for the American people .
We have a direct contact with the president of the United States and they don ’ t. ” At this moment in history , what the public needs more than anything else are answers to the forward-looking questions : What do we do now ?
And with this president , confronting him with reality also means confronting him with the fact that he has no idea what he ’ s talking about .
That ’ s what Reid and Collins did so well on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The country needs a plan , and Trump doesn ’ t have one .
Reporters need to press him on that – in part to expose his lack of leadership , and in part to push him in the right direction .
The context here is that , in the consensus view of public-health officials , there ’ s a clear path out of this crisis — and Trump isn ’ t taking it .
What ’ s required , first and foremost , is vastly more testing so public-health officials can determine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outbreaks when they are still small and isolate the people who are infected .
So here ’ s a question for Trump : Once we ’ ve reduced the number of infected people , don ’ t you realize that it ’ s not safe just to go back to normal until we can identify the people who are infected , make sure they ’ re isolated , and track down their contacts ?
Don ’ t you realize that requires massively more testing than we ’ re doing now ?
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public-health officials , complete with detailed , point-by-point plans for how to reopen the country and end the crisis safely .
Ask him point by point : Do you agree ?
Disagree ?
What are you doing about it ?
By contrast , the public-service mission is no justification for stupid , incremental questions or attempted gotchas aimed at generating tiny little news scooplets .
Those scooplets have no public-service value whatsoever .
What does this accomplish ?
Better questioning won ’ t change the essential nature of the event .
As Lou @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House for the Washington Post , told me back in 2004 , “ news conferences have always been a forum for the president to say what he wants to say , not for us to get the information that we want to get.
” And no president has ever been so brazen about ignoring the substance of a question , or attacking the reporter who asked it .
With Trump behind the podium , these news conferences will always be full of self-aggrandizement and misinformation .
But only a tiny fraction of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So what matters more is how they are covered .
And the coverage remains ridiculously variable – by publication , by reporters , and sometimes even by day .
And even after Monday ’ s epic meltdown — complete with a propaganda video — some reporters still couldn ’ t shake themselves loose from old habits that just don ’ t serve the readers anymore .
The New York Times news analysis by Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman ran under a headline that didn ’ t just fail to capture the reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it up : “ Trump Leaps to Call Shots on Reopening Nation , Setting Up Standoff With Governors.
” Baker and Haberman took Trump ’ s comments seriously , rather than calling out what a farce the entire briefing was , and focused on how those comments raised “ profound constitutional questions about the real extent of his powers ” .
The Associated Press ’ s main story , by Jill Colvin , Zeke Miller and Geoff Mulvihill , played it straight .
While in a separate story , Miller and Kevin Freking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxpayer-funded promotional video praising his own handling of the coronavirus outbreak and slamming his critics and the press ” was “ a highly unusual move.
” They cited a few particularly evocative Trump quotes — “ Everything we did was right , ” and “ I think I ’ ve educated a lot of people as to the press ” — and concluded that the briefing “ amounted to a telling demonstration of the president ’ growing defensiveness in the face of criticism that the administration should have acted more aggressively and sooner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story in Tuesday ’ s Washington Post treated Trump ’ s comments like they came during a normal press briefing .
The article by Tim Craig and Brady Dennis blandly reported on Trump declarations of authority without giving readers any indication of the circumstances .
That task was left to Ashley Parker , writing under a marvelous headline – “ The Me President : Trump uses pandemic briefing to focus on himself ” – and a warning label that her piece included “ a reporter ’ s insights.
” Parker wrote that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Trump is Trump — his self-image , his media coverage , his supplicants and his opponents , both real and imagined.
” And she wrote that “ Monday ’ s coronavirus briefing offered a particularly stark portrait of a president seeming unable to grasp the magnitude of the crisis — and saying little to address the suffering across the country he was elected to lead.
” Post opinion writer Greg Sargent also contributed his analysis , which included this memorable line : Few American news editors give their reporters the freedom that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Guardian , gets to call it as he sees it .
He wrote : Reporters should keep going to these briefings .
They should use their questions exclusively to demand answers on the public ’ s behalf and confront Trump with the reality he is incapable of accepting .
And then news organizations should recognize that the the news is not what Trump says — he ’ ll say anything .
It ’ s what he fails to say , to do , and to be .

It turns out there is a good reason for reporters to attend Donald Trump’s ridiculous, misinformation-spreading coronavirus news conferences.
It’s to confront him with reality – and let him flail wildly, melt down, and generally show the world he has no idea what he’s done or what he’s doing.
It’s to ask him simple questions that any competent leader could easily answer, and watch him have a temper tantrum.
So here is part of one exchange with CBS White House correspondent Paula Reid during Monday’s session. (Watch the video):
Reid: What did you do with that time that you bought? The argument is that you bought yourself some time. You didn’t use it to prepare hospitals. You didn’t use it to ramp up testing. Right now, nearly 20 million people are unemployed. Trump: You’re so disgraceful. It’s so disgraceful the way you say that…. Reid: Tens of thousands of Americans are dead. How is … this rant supposed to make people feel confident in an unprecedented crisis?… What did your administration do in February for the time that your travel ban bought you? Trump: A lot. Reid: What? Trump: A lot, and in fact, we’ll give you a list…. We did a lot. Look, look, you know you’re a fake.
Here is part of an exchange with CNN White House correspondent Kaitlin Collins (watch the video):
Collins: You said when someone is President of the United States, their authority is total. That is not true. Who told you that? Trump: You know what we’re going to do? We’re going to write up papers on this. Collins: Has any governor agreed that you have the authority to decide when their states… Trump: I haven’t asked anybody because… You know why? Because I don’t have to…. Collins: But who told you the president has the total authority? Trump: Enough!
There were others, too. Like when Trump was asked what he would do if governors defied a presidential order to reopen their states — and it became clear that his talk about having “total authority” over everything was not a serious, considered assertion of extraconstitutional rights, it was just bluster. “Well if some states refuse to open, I would like to see that person run for election,” he said.
To go or not to go
Not long after Trump started holding his almost daily news conferences, it became clear that they were not really about relating important information during a crisis, but were instead all about self-aggrandizement and the spreading of misinformation. Media critics and ethicists (including me) started arguing that television networks shouldn’t broadcast them live.
(My theoretical, hopeful exception would be if a news organization were prepared to aggressively use the split screen, to turn them into a vector for information instead of disinformation.)
(CNN’s aggressive use of a chyron Monday evening was good for a laugh, but arguably only made things worse.)
The other question that came up was whether reporters from major news organizations should even continue to attend, knowing that Trump would just use them as props.
Jay Rosen, the NYU journalism professor and widely respected media critic, argued that serious news organizations should refuse to assist him in spreading misinformation — which means not sending anyone.
“I would not send reporters so he can waste our time and use them as hate objects. I would tell them to watch it on CSPAN and report any news that emerges. If he makes a factual claim it has to be verified or no go,” Rosen tweeted last week.
And in his Pressthink blog on Sunday, Rosen published a list of 13 reasons that he thinks make them keep coming back for more. It is not an admirable list.
There’s the simplistic view that whatever the president says is news, no matter what. There’s the prestige of feeling like you’re part of the presidency. There’s the fact that it is such an easy and reliable way to create content. There’s the overvaluing of access.
That’s four. There are nine others, some better, some worse, and I highly recommend you go read them all.
But to my mind, Rosen left out the 14th – and only really good – reason for reporters to show up at the briefings.
It’s this: They are the only people allowed in from outside the bubble.
Every president exists within a bubble, but some more intentionally than others. Trump — even more than George W. Bush, and that’s saying something — will not be caught dead in a room with people who don’t agree with him, with this one exception. He doesn’t hold events that are open to the general public, only to supporters. He doesn’t even invite Democrats to the signing of bills they collaborated on. And his bubble is exclusively occupied by loyalists and sycophants.
Reporters, allowed inside the bubble, have enormous public-service responsibilities – particularly during a major public-health crisis, and particularly with this president.
They alone can demand the answers the public needs and deserves. And they alone can confront him with the reality that he denies.
As the late, legendary White House press corps veteran Helen Thomas explained it to me in 2004: “The presidential news conference is the only forum in our society in which the president can be questioned. If he doesn’t answer questions, there’s no accountability.… We speak for the American people. We have a direct contact with the president of the United States and they don’t.”
At this moment in history, what the public needs more than anything else are answers to the forward-looking questions: What do we do now?
And with this president, confronting him with reality also means confronting him with the fact that he has no idea what he’s talking about.
That’s what Reid and Collins did so well on Monday.
But we need more.
Asking questions as a public service
The country needs a plan, and Trump doesn’t have one. Reporters need to press him on that – in part to expose his lack of leadership, and in part to push him in the right direction.
The context here is that, in the consensus view of public-health officials, there’s a clear path out of this crisis — and Trump isn’t taking it. What’s required, first and foremost, is vastly more testing so public-health officials can determine what communities are safe and can identify outbreaks when they are still small and isolate the people who are infected.
So here’s a question for Trump: Once we’ve reduced the number of infected people, don’t you realize that it’s not safe just to go back to normal until we can identify the people who are infected, make sure they’re isolated, and track down their contacts? Don’t you realize that requires massively more testing than we’re doing now?
There are at least three, widely-endorsed roadmaps from public-health officials, complete with detailed, point-by-point plans for how to reopen the country and end the crisis safely. Ask him point by point: Do you agree? Disagree? What are you doing about it?
By contrast, the public-service mission is no justification for stupid, incremental questions or attempted gotchas aimed at generating tiny little news scooplets. Those scooplets have no public-service value whatsoever.
What does this accomplish?
Better questioning won’t change the essential nature of the event. As Lou Cannon, who covered the Reagan White House for the Washington Post, told me back in 2004, “news conferences have always been a forum for the president to say what he wants to say, not for us to get the information that we want to get.”
And no president has ever been so brazen about ignoring the substance of a question, or attacking the reporter who asked it. With Trump behind the podium, these news conferences will always be full of self-aggrandizement and misinformation.
(So Rosen may be right that no matter how excellent, thoughtful and tough the questions are, the net effect is still so bad that journalists should have no part of it.)
But only a tiny fraction of the news audience actually watches the briefings themselves.
So what matters more is how they are covered. And the coverage remains ridiculously variable – by publication, by reporters, and sometimes even by day.
And even after Monday’s epic meltdown — complete with a propaganda video — some reporters still couldn’t shake themselves loose from old habits that just don’t serve the readers anymore.
The New York Times news analysis by Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman ran under a headline that didn’t just fail to capture the reality of the event, it actively covered it up: “Trump Leaps to Call Shots on Reopening Nation, Setting Up Standoff With Governors.”
Baker and Haberman took Trump’s comments seriously, rather than calling out what a farce the entire briefing was, and focused on how those comments raised “profound constitutional questions about the real extent of his powers”.
The Associated Press’s main story, by Jill Colvin, Zeke Miller and Geoff Mulvihill, played it straight. While in a separate story, Miller and Kevin Freking noted that Trump use of “a taxpayer-funded promotional video praising his own handling of the coronavirus outbreak and slamming his critics and the press” was “a highly unusual move.”
They cited a few particularly evocative Trump quotes — “Everything we did was right,” and “I think I’ve educated a lot of people as to the press” — and concluded that the briefing “amounted to a telling demonstration of the president’ growing defensiveness in the face of criticism that the administration should have acted more aggressively and sooner to combat the virus.”
The lead story in Tuesday’s Washington Post treated Trump’s comments like they came during a normal press briefing. The article by Tim Craig and Brady Dennis blandly reported on Trump declarations of authority without giving readers any indication of the circumstances.
That task was left to Ashley Parker, writing under a marvelous headline – “The Me President: Trump uses pandemic briefing to focus on himself” – and a warning label that her piece included “a reporter’s insights.”
Parker wrote that Trump “made clear that the paramount concern for Trump is Trump — his self-image, his media coverage, his supplicants and his opponents, both real and imagined.” And she wrote that “Monday’s coronavirus briefing offered a particularly stark portrait of a president seeming unable to grasp the magnitude of the crisis — and saying little to address the suffering across the country he was elected to lead.”
Post opinion writer Greg Sargent also contributed his analysis, which included this memorable line:
When everything is all about maintaining appearances, with no concern whatsoever for underlying substance, this seeming contradiction disappears in a puff of Trumpian chaos pixie dust.
Few American news editors give their reporters the freedom that David Smith, the Washington bureau chief of the Guardian, gets to call it as he sees it. He wrote:
A toddler threw a self-pitying tantrum on live television on Monday night. Unfortunately he was 73 years old, wearing a long red tie and running the world’s most powerful country. Donald Trump, starved of campaign rallies, Mar-a-Lago weekends and golf, and goaded by a bombshell newspaper report, couldn’t take it any more. Years of accreted grievance and resentment towards the media came gushing out in a torrent. He ranted, he raved, he melted down and he blew up the internet with one of the most jaw-dropping performances of his presidency.
Reporters should keep going to these briefings. They should use their questions exclusively to demand answers on the public’s behalf and confront Trump with the reality he is incapable of accepting.
And then news organizations should recognize that the the news is not what Trump says — he’ll say anything. It’s what he fails to say, to do, and to be.


presswatchers--2020-04-10--Trump fails the test

Trump fails the test

Donald Trump made it clearer than ever on Thursday evening that he doesn ’ t understand the crucial role that widespread coronavirus testing plays in getting America back to work again safely .
So while he talks about reopening the country “ very , very soon , ” what he ’ s actually showing the world , every night , is that he has no idea what it will take to do that .
The overwhelming consensus among public-health experts is that it won ’ t be safe for Americans to resume anything like their normal lives until the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people than it does now .
Social distancing appears to be reducing the uncontrolled spread of the virus .
But if we can ’ t figure out who still has the virus and keep them away from healthy people , then when we emerge from our homes , we ’ ll just start the cycle over .
What ’ s required , first and foremost , is massive testing — not only vastly more diagnostic testing than we ’ re doing now , but also what ’ s called “ surveillance ” testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities are safe and can identify outbreaks when they are still small and isolate the people who are infected .
President Obama weighed in on Thursday .
He gets it : A former Obama adviser put it a bit less delicately : Indeed , there is no sign that Trump — preoccupied as he is with a fantasy narrative in which he and his administration have done everything perfectly — has a clue that testing needs to be ramped up .
CNN ’ s Jim Acosta asked exactly the right question at Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ read Trump ’ s entire reply , you need to know a few things to help you understand how meaningless it was : • We don ’ t have the best testing system in the world .
Per capita , we are badly trailing Germany , Italy , Australia , Canada , South Korea and several other countries .
• Every state in the nation has reported cases of the coronavirus .
• There is nothing “ exponential ” about the current increase in testing .
It ’ s up about 30 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t talking about testing every American ; that ’ s a straw-man argument .
He was talking about the kind of testing that would give public-health officials — and the public — a better sense of where the virus is and where it isn ’ t .
• Now here ’ s what Trump said : Trump : No .
We have a great testing system — right now , the best testing system in the world .
But there are certain sections — Acosta : But people can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : — there are certain sections in the country that are in phenomenal shape already .
Other sections are coming online [ sic ] .
Other sections are going down .
And we , in addition to that , are giving out millions of tests and every day we ’ re doing it exponentially , we ’ re picking up , and what we ’ ll be doing in the very near future is going to certain areas of our country and do massive testing .
It ’ s not necessary , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have .
Acosta : Don ’ t you have need , though , Mr. President , to make sure people are safe going back to work ?
You don ’ t want to send people back to the workplace — Trump : We want to have it .
And we ’ re going to see if we have it .
Do you need it ?
No .
Is it a nice thing to do ?
Yes .
We ’ re talking 325 million people .
And that ’ s not going to happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would never happen with anyone else , either .
Trump ’ s mention of “ massive testing , ” but only in “ certain areas of our country , ” was confusing at best and nonsensical at worst .
At Wednesday ’ s news conference , Trump was asked another good question : “ So what specifically has to happen for you to feel that it is safe to reopen the country ?
And what is your plan to do that ?
” His answer was purely “ aspirational ” — as he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deadline for reopening : Well , I think we can say that we have to be on that down side of that slope and heading to a very strong direction that this thing is gone .
We could do it in phases .
We can go to some areas , which , you know , some areas are much less affected than others .
But it would be nice to be able to open with a big bang and open up our country — or certainly most of our country .
And I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that soon .
If you look at what ’ s happening , I would say we ’ re ahead of schedule .
Now , you hate to say it too loudly because , all of a sudden , things don ’ t happen .
But I think we will be sooner rather than later .
But we ’ ll be sitting down with the professionals .
We ’ ll be sitting down with many different people and making a determination .
And those meetings will start taking place fairly soon .
Asked about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Trump lied about the current level of testing and almost certainly made up a story about how “ other countries ” are now “ calling us ” for advice .
Public-health experts are widely agreed on what needs to happen next , starting with a huge increase in testing but also including a massive nationwide program of contact-tracing to find who may have been infected by the people who tested positive , and some way of isolating the infected .
Each of those measures involve controversial tradeoffs , and complex federal oversight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ought to be preoccupying Trump .
Specifically , scientists I trust have directed me to three policy roadmaps that provide exactly what the Trump administration is failing to provide : a detailed , point-by-point plan for how to reopen the country and end the crisis safely .
They are also nearly identical in their broad strokes .
• “ A National and State Plan to End the Coronavirus Crisis , ” from the Center for American Progress , a Democratic think tank .
Its lead author is Zeke Emanuel , a medical ethicist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama health care adviser .
• “ National coronavirus response : A road map to reopening , ” from the American Enterprise Institute , a conservative think tank .
Its lead author is Scott Gottlieb , a physician and venture capitalist who was Trump ’ s first FDA commissioner .
• “ A National COVID-19 Surveillance System : Achieving Containment , ” from Duke University ’ s Center for Health Policy .
Its lead author is Mark McClellan , who served in the George W. Bush administration as FDA commissioner and administrator of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Reporters should hold Trump accountable to these roadmaps : Does he disagree with any of their conclusions or proposals ?
What if anything is he doing about them ?
All three emphasize the danger of not having a serious , credible plan .
As the CAP report states : The next step , as the AEI report explains , is : That ’ s where widespread testing becomes essential .
But as the Duke report states : None of this can happen just by flicking a switch , however .
From the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the personal and technological approaches to contact-tracing is essential , and presents a rare area of disagreement .
The CAP report , for instance , urges an approach like South Korea and Singapore , using mobile phones to notify individuals if they have been in close proximity to an individual who has tested positive — but with data hosted by a trusted , nonprofit organization , “ not private technology companies or the federal government.
” The Duke report , by contrast , concludes that a reliance on phones raises “ serious privacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and instead recommends a substantial investment in strengthening the state and local public health workforce and a system for timely data-sharing .
The experts are agreed that affected individuals should be isolated , often outside of their houses .
The AEI report says , “ Comfortable , free facilities should be provided for cases and their contacts who prefer local isolation , quarantine , and treatment away from home.
” Is anyone at the White House paying attention ?
Only the U.S. government can set up the necessary testing network .
Only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program .
And ideally , the White House could lead a constructive national debate about the appropriate role of cell phone data in contact tracing and the right approach to isolating the sick .
Despite Trump ’ s belligerent ignorance , there are some signs that Vice President Pence and other members of the White House task force are at least a bit more aware of the variables involved — but how much isn ’ t clear .
Pence , after Trump left the room on Thursday , talked in very general terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reopen .
“ First would be that we are at the end of the coronavirus for most major communities , ” he said .
He said that “ as we move into this summer and move into the fall , we ’ ll have the testing we need ” to do both diagnostic and surveillance testing .
But he also said reopening depends on having “ therapeutics for Americans to take medicines if they contract the disease ” — which , unless you believe Trump ’ s snake-oil pitches for hydroxychloroquine , isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNN , the mostly invisible CDC director , Robert Redfield , offered a little more insight on Thursday evening , acknowledging the need for contract tracing and “ using the data that we have from surveillance to understand the most important places for us to reopen.
” According to Politico , Dr. Anthony Fauci , the nation ’ s top infectious diseases expert , told lawmakers earlier this week “ that administration officials are developing a framework for getting back to ‘ normality ’ and that he expects the White House to issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coming days.
” On Wednesday , Brett P. Giroir , the assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services , discussed movement toward antibody testing .
“ This allows for surveillance screening … to understand if 1 percent , 5 percent , 30 percent of Americans have been infected .
But it also allows us to have very widespread — tens and tens of millions of people screened with a finger prick on the spot.
” He predicted that “ if things work out the way we believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ of tests ] on the market by May — in a sophisticated way , in a prospective way — that we get the surveillance we need .
We can test people to see if they ’ ve been exposed , immune , and [ can ] go back to work .
And a combination of that kind of test with the current kind of tests we have now is how America opens back up again.
” Meanwhile , Trump continues to be obsessed with his TV ratings , not testing .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything will be better soon .
Emanuel , the lead author of the CAP report , recently told Deadline : The media ’ s role here is essential .
Every time Trump says things are “ headed in the right direction , ” reporters should be demanding answers to specific questions about the plan forward — and should make it clear to the public that he has no serious , concrete , plausible or credible plan at all .
Reporters need to expose his ignorance , rather than continue to indulge him — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zapotosky , Josh Dawsey , Jose A. Del Real and William Wan did Thursday night , in their story headlined “ Trump administration pushing to reopen much of the U.S. next month.
” Read all the way down and you learn that he can ’ t do it ( only the governors can ) ; that health experts say it would be completely crazy ; and that no one in Trump ’ s inner circle can answer the simplest questions about how this could possibly be safe .
But Trump — and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House — got the headline they wanted , nonetheless .

Donald Trump made it clearer than ever on Thursday evening that he doesn’t understand the crucial role that widespread coronavirus testing plays in getting America back to work again safely.
So while he talks about reopening the country “very, very soon,” what he’s actually showing the world, every night, is that he has no idea what it will take to do that.
The overwhelming consensus among public-health experts is that it won’t be safe for Americans to resume anything like their normal lives until the country has the ability to test magnitudes more people than it does now.
Social distancing appears to be reducing the uncontrolled spread of the virus. But if we can’t figure out who still has the virus and keep them away from healthy people, then when we emerge from our homes, we’ll just start the cycle over.
What’s required, first and foremost, is massive testing — not only vastly more diagnostic testing than we’re doing now, but also what’s called “surveillance” testing, so public-health officials can determine what communities are safe and can identify outbreaks when they are still small and isolate the people who are infected.
President Obama weighed in on Thursday. He gets it:
Social distancing bends the curve and relieves some pressure on our heroic medical professionals. But in order to shift off current policies, the key will be a robust system of testing and monitoring – something we have yet to put in place nationwide. https://t.co/evkTSrzReB — Barack Obama (@BarackObama) April 8, 2020
A former Obama adviser put it a bit less delicately:
What drives me insane is that Trump could actually do something to ultimately make fewer restrictions possible: mass testing and tracing. But there has been little progress on this for reasons we can’t seem to get an answer to. It’s crazy. https://t.co/XfaoMhkBhX — Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) April 10, 2020
Indeed, there is no sign that Trump — preoccupied as he is with a fantasy narrative in which he and his administration have done everything perfectly — has a clue that testing needs to be ramped up.
CNN’s Jim Acosta asked exactly the right question at Thursday’s news conference.
Acosta: Mr. President, how could the administration discuss the possibility of reopening the country when the administration does not have an adequate nationwide testing system for this virus? Don’t you need a nationwide testing system for the virus before you reopen?
Trump said no.
Before you read Trump’s entire reply, you need to know a few things to help you understand how meaningless it was:
We don’t have the best testing system in the world. Per capita, we are badly trailing Germany, Italy, Australia, Canada, South Korea and several other countries. Every state in the nation has reported cases of the coronavirus. There is nothing “exponential” about the current increase in testing. It’s up about 30 percent over a week ago. Acosta wasn’t talking about testing every American; that’s a straw-man argument. He was talking about the kind of testing that would give public-health officials — and the public — a better sense of where the virus is and where it isn’t. Now here’s what Trump said:
Trump: No. We have a great testing system — right now, the best testing system in the world. But there are certain sections — Acosta: But people can’t get the test right now — Trump: — there are certain sections in the country that are in phenomenal shape already. Other sections are coming online [sic]. Other sections are going down. And we, in addition to that, are giving out millions of tests and every day we’re doing it exponentially, we’re picking up, and what we’ll be doing in the very near future is going to certain areas of our country and do massive testing. It’s not necessary, but it would be a good thing to have. Acosta: Don’t you have need, though, Mr. President, to make sure people are safe going back to work? You don’t want to send people back to the workplace — Trump: We want to have it. And we’re going to see if we have it. Do you need it? No. Is it a nice thing to do? Yes. We’re talking 325 million people. And that’s not going to happen, as you can imagine. It would never happen with anyone else, either.
Trump’s mention of “massive testing,” but only in “certain areas of our country,” was confusing at best and nonsensical at worst.
At Wednesday’s news conference, Trump was asked another good question: “So what specifically has to happen for you to feel that it is safe to reopen the country? And what is your plan to do that?”
His answer was purely “aspirational” — as he now calls his earlier, Easter Sunday deadline for reopening:
Well, I think we can say that we have to be on that down side of that slope and heading to a very strong direction that this thing is gone. We could do it in phases. We can go to some areas, which, you know, some areas are much less affected than others. But it would be nice to be able to open with a big bang and open up our country — or certainly most of our country. And I think we’re going to do that soon. If you look at what’s happening, I would say we’re ahead of schedule. Now, you hate to say it too loudly because, all of a sudden, things don’t happen. But I think we will be sooner rather than later. But we’ll be sitting down with the professionals. We’ll be sitting down with many different people and making a determination. And those meetings will start taking place fairly soon.
Asked about plans for “monitoring and testing,” Trump lied about the current level of testing and almost certainly made up a story about how “other countries” are now “calling us” for advice.
The roadmaps
Public-health experts are widely agreed on what needs to happen next, starting with a huge increase in testing but also including a massive nationwide program of contact-tracing to find who may have been infected by the people who tested positive, and some way of isolating the infected.
Each of those measures involve controversial tradeoffs, and complex federal oversight and support.
That’s what ought to be preoccupying Trump.
Specifically, scientists I trust have directed me to three policy roadmaps that provide exactly what the Trump administration is failing to provide: a detailed, point-by-point plan for how to reopen the country and end the crisis safely. They are also nearly identical in their broad strokes.
They are:
“A National and State Plan to End the Coronavirus Crisis,” from the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank. Its lead author is Zeke Emanuel, a medical ethicist, University of Pennsylvania professor and former Obama health care adviser.
“National coronavirus response: A road map to reopening,” from the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. Its lead author is Scott Gottlieb, a physician and venture capitalist who was Trump’s first FDA commissioner.
“A National COVID-19 Surveillance System: Achieving Containment,” from Duke University’s Center for Health Policy. Its lead author is Mark McClellan, who served in the George W. Bush administration as FDA commissioner and administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Reporters should hold Trump accountable to these roadmaps: Does he disagree with any of their conclusions or proposals? What if anything is he doing about them?
All three emphasize the danger of not having a serious, credible plan. As the CAP report states:
Without a coherent, evidence-based plan in place—a path forward, clear benchmarks, and an end in sight—the public and government officials may grow weary of physical distancing prematurely. The result would be repeated waves of exponential transmission followed by lockdowns, wreaking havoc on the economy and peoples’ lives. It will be far more devastating to our economy—and to public health—to experience waves and waves of virus response rather than properly return to normal when it is truly safe. Americans are willing to make sacrifices and do their part to break transmission, but they need to have faith that there is a plan in place that will work.
The next step, as the AEI report explains, is:
To move from community-wide interventions that focus on large populations to case-based interventions that target and isolate individual people who are infected.
That’s where widespread testing becomes essential. But as the Duke report states:
Not one of the 50 U.S. states currently has surveillance capabilities sufficient to enable case-based interventions at the necessary scale. While these capacities are being scaled up in some places around the country, getting them to a level adequate to mitigate the risk of future outbreaks and epidemics will require a substantial expansion of our public health infrastructure and case-based management capabilities. With Federal support, surveillance mechanisms can be increased or implemented and better integrated with testing by providers.
None of this can happen just by flicking a switch, however. From the Duke report:
A reasonable first approach is to support rapid pilot program in some regions of the country that are already supporting existing surveillance capabilities. For example, Massachusetts recently announced a new program to hire and train 1,000 people to support contact tracing. Successful early models and best practices would provide the basis for CDC’s guidance to expand these capabilities throughout the country.
Finding a balance between the personal and technological approaches to contact-tracing is essential, and presents a rare area of disagreement.
The CAP report, for instance, urges an approach like South Korea and Singapore, using mobile phones to notify individuals if they have been in close proximity to an individual who has tested positive — but with data hosted by a trusted, nonprofit organization, “not private technology companies or the federal government.”
The Duke report, by contrast, concludes that a reliance on phones raises “serious privacy, security, and logistical concerns,” and instead recommends a substantial investment in strengthening the state and local public health workforce and a system for timely data-sharing.
The experts are agreed that affected individuals should be isolated, often outside of their houses. The AEI report says, “Comfortable, free facilities should be provided for cases and their contacts who prefer local isolation, quarantine, and treatment away from home.”
Is anyone at the White House paying attention?
Only the U.S. government can set up the necessary testing network. Only the CDC can lead an effective contact-tracing program.
And ideally, the White House could lead a constructive national debate about the appropriate role of cell phone data in contact tracing and the right approach to isolating the sick.
Despite Trump’s belligerent ignorance, there are some signs that Vice President Pence and other members of the White House task force are at least a bit more aware of the variables involved — but how much isn’t clear.
Pence, after Trump left the room on Thursday, talked in very general terms about what needs to happen before places reopen. “First would be that we are at the end of the coronavirus for most major communities,” he said. He said that “as we move into this summer and move into the fall, we’ll have the testing we need” to do both diagnostic and surveillance testing.
But he also said reopening depends on having “therapeutics for Americans to take medicines if they contract the disease” — which, unless you believe Trump’s snake-oil pitches for hydroxychloroquine, isn’t necessarily anytime soon.
On CNN, the mostly invisible CDC director, Robert Redfield, offered a little more insight on Thursday evening, acknowledging the need for contract tracing and “using the data that we have from surveillance to understand the most important places for us to reopen.”
According to Politico, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious diseases expert, told lawmakers earlier this week “that administration officials are developing a framework for getting back to ‘normality’ and that he expects the White House to issue more guidance about eventually reopening society in the coming days.”
On Wednesday, Brett P. Giroir, the assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services, discussed movement toward antibody testing. “This allows for surveillance screening … to understand if 1 percent, 5 percent, 30 percent of Americans have been infected. But it also allows us to have very widespread — tens and tens of millions of people screened with a finger prick on the spot.”
He predicted that “if things work out the way we believe they will, we will have millions [of tests] on the market by May — in a sophisticated way, in a prospective way — that we get the surveillance we need. We can test people to see if they’ve been exposed, immune, and [can] go back to work. And a combination of that kind of test with the current kind of tests we have now is how America opens back up again.”
Meanwhile, Trump continues to be obsessed with his TV ratings, not testing. He continues to insist, vaguely, that everything will be better soon.
Emanuel, the lead author of the CAP report, recently told Deadline:
Everyone knows that the President knows nothing, and is just doing what he hopes, rather than what is realistic. What they want is what’s realistic. It’s, “Tell me what the plan is over that time.”… I think I have a plan. There are other people who have slightly different plans, but we have to have a concerted discussion going forward.
The media’s role here is essential. Every time Trump says things are “headed in the right direction,” reporters should be demanding answers to specific questions about the plan forward — and should make it clear to the public that he has no serious, concrete, plausible or credible plan at all.
Reporters need to expose his ignorance, rather than continue to indulge him — like the Washington Post’s Matt Zapotosky, Josh Dawsey, Jose A. Del Real and William Wan did Thursday night, in their story headlined “Trump administration pushing to reopen much of the U.S. next month.”
Read all the way down and you learn that he can’t do it (only the governors can); that health experts say it would be completely crazy; and that no one in Trump’s inner circle can answer the simplest questions about how this could possibly be safe.
But Trump — and the zealots he listens to inside and outside the White House — got the headline they wanted, nonetheless.


presswatchers--2020-04-07--Trump’s weak spot is the facts. Reporters should press on.

It was amazing to watch just how upset Donald Trump got on Monday night when reporters asked him about a new , fact-filled report about how hospitals across the nation have been dealing with the coronavirus pandemic .
The report , from the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general ’ s office , was a summary of brief telephone interviews with 323 hospital administrators from across the country during the last week of March .
It was intended purely to provide HHS officials “ and other decision-makers ” with “ a national snapshot of hospitals ’ challenges and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many hospitals reported severe shortages of testing supplies and extended waits for test results , limiting their ability to monitor the health of patients and staff , and putting a strain on hospital beds , personal protective equipment , and staffing .
This wasn ’ t a critique of anything or anyone .
It was just a reality check .
And that ’ s exactly why it sent Trump into a sputtering rage , lashing out at imagined enemies and mocking the very notion that anyone he didn ’ t appoint should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ironically , the initial question during Monday ’ s news conference came from Fox News Reporter Kristin Fisher .
In case you missed it , the exchange is worth reading or watching in its entirety .
Trump interrupted Fisher ’ s question before she was even done , mocking its source .
“ Did I hear the word ‘ inspector general ’ ?
Really ?
It ’ s wrong.
” Fisher returned to the issue later .
Fisher : I know you don ’ t want to talk about the inspector general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big issue in this country .
When can hospitals expect ?
….When can hospitals expect to receive a quick turnaround of its test results ?
Trump : Are you ready ?
Are you ready ?
Hospitals can do their own testing also .
States can do their own testing .
States , they ’ re supposed to be doing testing .
Hospitals as opposed to be doing testing .
Do you understand that ?
We ’ re the federal government .
Listen , we ’ re the federal government .
We ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing testing .
They go to doctors , they go to hospitals , they go to the state .
The state is a more localized government .
You have 50 of them and they can go… you also have territories as you know… We have a brand new testing system that we developed very quickly and that ’ s your result .
And you should say , congratulations .
Great job .
Instead of being so horrid in the way you ask a question .
In reality , not only is the rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well below several other countries ’ , but it needs to be magnitudes larger if the nation is every to return to anything remotely like normalcy .
Trump also lashed out at ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl with bitter sarcasm , accusing him of hiding the fact that the report was issued by someone he didn ’ t pick – in this case , by Christi Grimm , a 21-year veteran of the office who was appointed principal deputy inspector general in January 2017 .
Trump never got around to nominating anyone to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resigned in June 2019 .
Trump : How long has that person been in government ?
Karl : They did serve in the previous administration .
Trump : Oh , you didn ’ t tell me that .
Oh , I see .
You didn ’ t tell me that , Jon .
You didn ’ t tell me that .
Did serve in the previous admin .
You mean the Obama administration ?
Thank you for telling me that .
See , there ’ s a typical fake news deal .
Karl @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointed , I told you when she was appointed .
Trump : You ’ re a third rate reporter and what you just said is a disgrace , OK ?
You asked me , you said , “ sir , just got appointed.
” Take a look at what you said now .
I said , “ When did this person , how long in government ?
” Well , it was appointed in the Obama administration .
Thank you very much , Jon .
Thank you very much .
You will never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump was still going , tweeting : CNN ’ s Stephen Collinson got it exactly right when he wrote : Also on the CNN website , Tara Subramaniam , Daniel Dale , Lauren Fox , Priscilla Alvarez and Holmes Lybrand wrote : I ’ ve written before that Trump ’ s daily appearances shouldn ’ t be widely broadcast live , and should be annotated so that journalists can put what he says in context as he speaks .
I wrote on Monday that , rather than ask incremental questions , reporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big questions , like : What ’ s the plan ?
When will it be safe to go out again ?
How will we know ?
But there ’ s also some value in simply confronting Trump with the facts and watching him explode in fury , attacking the questioner , attacking the source , blaming others and generally refusing to take any responsibility for what ’ s actually going on .
The facts are his greatest enemy , and the public needs to understand that .
As Yasmeen Abutaleb , Josh Dawsey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their devastating Washington Post overview of Trump ’ s failed response over the weekend :

It was amazing to watch just how upset Donald Trump got on Monday night when reporters asked him about a new, fact-filled report about how hospitals across the nation have been dealing with the coronavirus pandemic.
The report, from the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general’s office, was a summary of brief telephone interviews with 323 hospital administrators from across the country during the last week of March. It was intended purely to provide HHS officials “and other decision-makers” with “a national snapshot of hospitals’ challenges and needs.”
Its chief finding was that many hospitals reported severe shortages of testing supplies and extended waits for test results, limiting their ability to monitor the health of patients and staff, and putting a strain on hospital beds, personal protective equipment, and staffing.
This wasn’t a critique of anything or anyone. It was just a reality check.
And that’s exactly why it sent Trump into a sputtering rage, lashing out at imagined enemies and mocking the very notion that anyone he didn’t appoint should be in a position to hold him accountable.
Ironically, the initial question during Monday’s news conference came from Fox News Reporter Kristin Fisher. In case you missed it, the exchange is worth reading or watching in its entirety.
Trump interrupted Fisher’s question before she was even done, mocking its source. “Did I hear the word ‘inspector general’? Really? It’s wrong.”
Fisher returned to the issue later.
Fisher: I know you don’t want to talk about the inspector general report, but testing is still a big issue in this country. When can hospitals expect?….When can hospitals expect to receive a quick turnaround of its test results? Trump: Are you ready? Are you ready? Hospitals can do their own testing also. States can do their own testing. States, they’re supposed to be doing testing. Hospitals as opposed to be doing testing. Do you understand that? We’re the federal government. Listen, we’re the federal government. We’re not supposed to stand on street corners doing testing. They go to doctors, they go to hospitals, they go to the state. The state is a more localized government. You have 50 of them and they can go… you also have territories as you know… We have a brand new testing system that we developed very quickly and that’s your result. And you should say, congratulations. Great job. Instead of being so horrid in the way you ask a question.
In reality, not only is the rate of testing per capita in the U.S. well below several other countries’, but it needs to be magnitudes larger if the nation is every to return to anything remotely like normalcy.
Trump also lashed out at ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl with bitter sarcasm, accusing him of hiding the fact that the report was issued by someone he didn’t pick – in this case, by Christi Grimm, a 21-year veteran of the office who was appointed principal deputy inspector general in January 2017. Trump never got around to nominating anyone to replace the previous inspector general, who resigned in June 2019.
Trump: How long has that person been in government? Karl: They did serve in the previous administration. Trump: Oh, you didn’t tell me that. Oh, I see. You didn’t tell me that, Jon. You didn’t tell me that. Did serve in the previous admin. You mean the Obama administration? Thank you for telling me that. See, there’s a typical fake news deal. Karl: You asked me when she was appointed, I told you when she was appointed. Trump: You’re a third rate reporter and what you just said is a disgrace, OK? You asked me, you said, “sir, just got appointed.” Take a look at what you said now. I said, “When did this person, how long in government?” Well, it was appointed in the Obama administration. Thank you very much, Jon. Thank you very much. You will never make it.
And on Tuesday morning, Trump was still going, tweeting:
Why didn’t the I.G., who spent 8 years with the Obama Administration (Did she Report on the failed H1N1 Swine Flu debacle where 17,000 people died?), want to talk to the Admirals, Generals, V.P. & others in charge, before doing her report. Another Fake Dossier! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 7, 2020
CNN’s Stephen Collinson got it exactly right when he wrote:
President Donald Trump’s contempt for science and disdain for experts who question his political narratives are driving his increasingly defensive and brittle management of the coronavirus pandemic. Trump was short-tempered and rude during much of his daily briefing on Monday as he refused to even listen to questions about shortcomings in the federal government effort.
Collinson continued:
[Trump’s] feuds with reporters on other issues Monday underscored his wider reluctance to allow inconvenient evidence to mar his cultivated picture of hugely successful leadership amid the worst domestic crisis since World War II…. One reason why Trump appeared to be flailing in recent news conferences may be that his political approach — based on denying robust fact-based evidence — is being badly exposed.
Also on the CNN website, Tara Subramaniam, Daniel Dale, Lauren Fox, Priscilla Alvarez and Holmes Lybrand wrote:
There’s no evidence to suggest anything about the report is wrong, or that it was somehow politically motivated.
I’ve written before that Trump’s daily appearances shouldn’t be widely broadcast live, and should be annotated so that journalists can put what he says in context as he speaks.
I wrote on Monday that, rather than ask incremental questions, reporters who attend should at least ask Trump big questions, like: What’s the plan? When will it be safe to go out again? How will we know?
But there’s also some value in simply confronting Trump with the facts and watching him explode in fury, attacking the questioner, attacking the source, blaming others and generally refusing to take any responsibility for what’s actually going on. The facts are his greatest enemy, and the public needs to understand that.
As Yasmeen Abutaleb, Josh Dawsey, Ellen Nakashima and Greg Miller wrote in their devastating Washington Post overview of Trump’s failed response over the weekend:


presswatchers--2020-04-06--The man with no plan

The man with no plan

CNN anchor Jake Tapper wrapped up his show on Sunday with a question for Donald Trump .
“ Mr .
President , ” he said .
“ I know you , like millions of Americans , are eager to have the nation go back to some semblance of normal .
One of the questions the American people need answered for that to happen responsibly : What ’ s the plan ?
” It ’ s a simple question .
It ’ s an obvious question .
It ’ s an essential question .
Yet most political reporters have been so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they haven ’ t asked it enough , if at all .
And in all the countless hours of bluster and spin , Trump has never once articulated anything remotely like a plausible plan for how we get to the point where it ’ s safe for people to go back to work again — beyond some sort of unspecified miracle .
“ Things are happening .
We ’ re starting to see light at the end of the tunnel .
And hopefully , in the not-too-distant future , we ’ ll be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did , ” he said Sunday .
“ As a nation , we face a difficult few weeks as we approach that really important day when we ’ re going to see things get better all of a sudden , ” he said Tuesday .
“ And it ’ s going to be like a burst of light – I really think and I hope.
” ( Reporters , amazingly , lauded him for his new realism . )
Tapper is not alone in realizing that there needs to be a plan — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one .
“ What , exactly , is the endgame here ?
” asked David Wallace-Wells , writing for New York magazine on Monday : That there is no coherent federal plan to deal with the outbreak as it currently stands is horrifying enough — an absolute evacuation of presidential leadership that has already cost thousands of lives and will likely cost tens of thousands more .
But the fact that there is also no planning to speak of for how we might leave behind the present crisis means all we can see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more darkness .
Wallace-Wells despairs both about the lack of a plan and the lack of “ visible discussion ” about a plan .
That latter problem is something we in the media could and should be doing something about .
The fact is that experts have all sorts of proposals for what we should do to put this crisis behind us — it ’ s just that , for some reason , the media continues to let Trump set the agenda rather than let the experts do it .
As I wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public-health experts is that the only way life will return to something like normal is if the federal government initiates widespread , quick-turnaround , publicly-reported testing – not just of the sick or scared , but of cross sections of every community .
Economists have a plan , too .
New York Times reporter Jim Tankersley talked to “ more than a dozen economists ” and found a “ broad consensus on the building blocks the economy needs — but does not yet have — to begin the slow process of restoring normalcy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan involves – surprise !
— widespread testing , among other things .
It would also require Trump and other policymakers “ to level with Americans — and themselves — and concede the possibility that the shutdown and its effects could drag well beyond the end of the month.
” And this plan , from the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard , calls for urgent , aggressive investment in IT for contact tracing and “ increasing testing capacity to millions of tests administered per day.
” Trump ’ s daily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but they could be an opportunity for journalists to speak out on behalf of the public and the experts .
So reporters should stop asking little incremental questions that Trump ducks and turns into repetitive soliloquies .
Instead , they should relentlessly ask : What ’ s the plan ?
When will it be safe to go out again ?
How will we know ?
And they can contrast his responses , such as they are , with actual plans – like the ones mentioned above .
Why hasn ’ t he adopted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the hold-up ?
Or is he just waiting for a miracle ?

CNN anchor Jake Tapper wrapped up his show on Sunday with a question for Donald Trump.
“Mr. President,” he said. “I know you, like millions of Americans, are eager to have the nation go back to some semblance of normal. One of the questions the American people need answered for that to happen responsibly: What’s the plan?”
It’s a simple question. It’s an obvious question. It’s an essential question. Yet most political reporters have been so caught up in the day-to-day drama that they haven’t asked it enough, if at all.
And in all the countless hours of bluster and spin, Trump has never once articulated anything remotely like a plausible plan for how we get to the point where it’s safe for people to go back to work again — beyond some sort of unspecified miracle.
“Things are happening. We’re starting to see light at the end of the tunnel. And hopefully, in the not-too-distant future, we’ll be very proud of the job we all did,” he said Sunday.
“As a nation, we face a difficult few weeks as we approach that really important day when we’re going to see things get better all of a sudden,” he said Tuesday. “And it’s going to be like a burst of light – I really think and I hope.” (Reporters, amazingly, lauded him for his new realism.)
Tapper is not alone in realizing that there needs to be a plan — and that Trump doesn’t have one.
“What, exactly, is the endgame here?” asked David Wallace-Wells, writing for New York magazine on Monday:
That there is no coherent federal plan to deal with the outbreak as it currently stands is horrifying enough — an absolute evacuation of presidential leadership that has already cost thousands of lives and will likely cost tens of thousands more. But the fact that there is also no planning to speak of for how we might leave behind the present crisis means all we can see looking forward from the darkness — is more darkness.
Wallace-Wells despairs both about the lack of a plan and the lack of “visible discussion” about a plan. That latter problem is something we in the media could and should be doing something about.
The fact is that experts have all sorts of proposals for what we should do to put this crisis behind us — it’s just that, for some reason, the media continues to let Trump set the agenda rather than let the experts do it.
As I wrote on March 27, the consensus among public-health experts is that the only way life will return to something like normal is if the federal government initiates widespread, quick-turnaround, publicly-reported testing – not just of the sick or scared, but of cross sections of every community.
Economists have a plan, too. New York Times reporter Jim Tankersley talked to “more than a dozen economists” and found a “broad consensus on the building blocks the economy needs — but does not yet have — to begin the slow process of restoring normalcy in the American economy.”
That consensus plan involves – surprise! — widespread testing, among other things.
It would also require Trump and other policymakers “to level with Americans — and themselves — and concede the possibility that the shutdown and its effects could drag well beyond the end of the month.”
Here’s a plan from former CDC director Tom Frieden:
We can’t just wait for cases to ebb; we must URGENTLY meet benchmarks so we can loosen the faucet as soon & as safely as possible. It’s not about WHEN we can reopen, but WHAT we have to do to make that day come sooner. We put together criteria here: https://t.co/mFrSp24YX4 pic.twitter.com/oHBPoS8oFH — Dr. Tom Frieden (@DrTomFrieden) April 3, 2020
And this plan, from the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard, calls for urgent, aggressive investment in IT for contact tracing and “increasing testing capacity to millions of tests administered per day.”
Trump’s daily briefings are not good for much, but they could be an opportunity for journalists to speak out on behalf of the public and the experts. So reporters should stop asking little incremental questions that Trump ducks and turns into repetitive soliloquies.
Instead, they should relentlessly ask: What’s the plan? When will it be safe to go out again? How will we know?
And they can contrast his responses, such as they are, with actual plans – like the ones mentioned above. Why hasn’t he adopted one of those plans? What’s the hold-up? Or is he just waiting for a miracle?


presswatchers--2020-04-01--Trump predicts two bad weeks followed by ‘a burst of light’ and political press lauds him for his ne

Trump predicts two bad weeks followed by ‘a burst of light’ and political press lauds him for his new realism

During a rambling two-hour press conference on Tuesday evening , Donald Trump braced the country for a “ very tough two weeks ” – after which , he said , things will “ get better all of a sudden… like a burst of light.
” And for this , certain elements of the White House press corps exclaimed over the latest plot twist – Trump gets somber !
– and hailed him for finally accepting reality .
But Trump did no such thing .
Yes , it was Trump ’ s first public acknowledgment of the true scale of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignored that it was accompanied by yet another round of magical thinking on his part — not to mention his continued insistence that his leadership has been beyond reproach .
You ’ ll remember how Trump said in late February that “ within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero.
” He predicted that “ It ’ s going to disappear .
One day — it ’ s like a miracle — it will disappear.
” On Tuesday , he was still predicting miracles .
He just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he said “ maybe even three weeks.
” Even if you ignore his “ burst of light ” fantasy , by the way , the figures the White House displayed Tuesday show that in the best-case scenario , the national death rate peaks in 15 days .
That doesn ’ t mean the horror ends .
In fact , looking a the total projected fatalities , more than two thirds will occur after April 15 .
So in 15 days , the worst will still be yet to come .
Nevertheless , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Peter Baker saw what he wanted to see : Philip Rucker and William Wan wrote in the Washington Post : CBS News anchor Norah O ’ Donnell intoned : “ It seems like today is the day the reality of the staggering death toll hit hard at the White House.
” It was so predictable , it was depressing .
Here is part of a Twitter thread from NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen : On NPR ’ s “ All Things Considered , ” host Ailsa Chang told listeners that “ President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead in tonight ’ s coronavirus task force briefing.
” Fortunately , science writer Richard Harris brought some needed clarity to the matter : HARRIS : Well , they finally laid out the data from the models that they ’ ve been using .
And the basic idea that they tell , the story they tell is this whole thing will peak in about mid-April if the models are correct , and then it will slowly fade .
It will not be the burst of light that the president referred to , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dr. Anthony Fauci from the National Institutes of Health says cases will gradually fall after the peak , but we ’ ll be seeing deaths for some time after that because time elapses between the time a person ’ s case is reported and an eventual death .
And while it came late in Tuesday ’ s seemingly endless news conference , Trump engaged in a fascinating exchange with CNN ’ s Jim Acosta , in which he attempted to assert a number of contradictory claims to the effect that he knew all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but that he didn ’ t want to be negative , but that he was being negative , but that it would be all over soon : Acosta : Going back to your comments about what could have happened and the actions that you took , is there any fairness to the criticism that you may have lulled Americans into a false sense of security when you were saying things like , “ It ’ s going to go away.
” Acosta : And that sort of thing .
Trump : It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hopefully at the end of the month and if not it hopefully will be soon after that .
As for his previous optimism : Trump : I think from the beginning , my attitude was that we have to give this country… I knew how bad it was .
All you have to do is look at what was going on in China .
It was devastation .
Well , yeah , look at the numbers from China , those initial numbers coming out from China .
But I read an article today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ We wish president Trump would give more bad news.
” Give bad news .
I ’ m not about bad news .
I want to give people hope .
I want to give people a feeling that we all have a chance… Acosta : You weren ’ t just hoping that it would dissipate , that this would disappear ?
Trump : I want to be positive .
I don ’ t want to be negative… .
I ’ m a cheerleader for the country .
We ’ re going through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s probably ever seen .
Look , we had the Civil War , we lost 600,000 people , right ?
Here ’ s the thing , had we not done anything , we would have lost many times that , but we did something and so it ’ s going to be hopefully way under that , but we lose more here potentially than you lose in world wars as a country .
So there ’ s nothing positive , there ’ s nothing great about it , but I want to give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think it ’ s very important .
Acosta : Did you know it was going to be this severe when you were saying this was under control and — Trump : I knew everything .
I knew it could be horrible and I knew it could be maybe good .
Don ’ t forget , at that time people didn ’ t know that much about it .
Even the experts , we were talking about it .
We didn ’ t know where it was going… But I don ’ t want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d be so much easier for me to come up and say , “ We have bad news .
We ’ re going to lose 220,000 people and it ’ s going to happen over the next few weeks.
” And with that , I did start off by saying today , long before this question , I said , “ This is going to be a rough two or three weeks.
” This is going to be one of the roughest two or three weeks we ’ ve ever had in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lose thousands of people… .
When you see the kind of numbers that we ’ re witnessing , we ’ ve never seen numbers like that .
So it ’ s easy to be negative and then everybody could be negative .
But I ’ m a cheerleader for our country , and I want to do a great job so the number can be kept … And I ’ ve always said it .
I want as few a number of people to die as possible and that ’ s all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here ’ s a clause reporters can use next time Trump shares ridiculously optimistic projections that have no basis in fact : “ Trump , who has previously acknowledged that he is ‘ not about bad news , ’ … ” Politico editor John Harris has a new essay out making the now-tired argument that Trump ’ s “ bluster , defiance , implacable self-promotion ” have “ served him quite well ” in the past , but no longer .
He concludes : Elite political reporters keep trying to write about how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will .

During a rambling two-hour press conference on Tuesday evening, Donald Trump braced the country for a “very tough two weeks” – after which, he said, things will “get better all of a sudden… like a burst of light.”
And for this, certain elements of the White House press corps exclaimed over the latest plot twist – Trump gets somber! – and hailed him for finally accepting reality.
But Trump did no such thing.
Yes, it was Trump’s first public acknowledgment of the true scale of the disastrous coronavirus pandemic. But reporters largely ignored that it was accompanied by yet another round of magical thinking on his part — not to mention his continued insistence that his leadership has been beyond reproach.
You’ll remember how Trump said in late February that “within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero.” He predicted that “It’s going to disappear. One day — it’s like a miracle — it will disappear.”
On Tuesday, he was still predicting miracles. He just modified the timeframe:
I want every American to be prepared for the hard days that lie ahead. We’re going to go through a very tough two weeks. And then hopefully as the experts are predicting, as I think a lot of us are predicting I after having studied it so hard, you’re going to start seeing some real light at the end of the tunnel, but this is going to be a very painful, very, very painful two weeks.
He continued:
As a nation, we face a difficult few weeks as we approach that really important day when we’re going to see things get better all of a sudden. And it’s going to be like a burst of light – I really think and I hope.
At one point, he said “maybe even three weeks.”
Even if you ignore his “burst of light” fantasy, by the way, the figures the White House displayed Tuesday show that in the best-case scenario, the national death rate peaks in 15 days. That doesn’t mean the horror ends. In fact, looking a the total projected fatalities, more than two thirds will occur after April 15. So in 15 days, the worst will still be yet to come.
Nevertheless, New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker saw what he wanted to see:
The grim-faced president who appeared in the White House briefing room for more than two hours on Tuesday evening beside charts showing death projections of hellacious proportions was coming to grips with a reality he had long refused to accept…. A crisis that Mr. Trump had repeatedly asserted was “under control” and hoped would “miraculously” disappear has come to consume his presidency, presenting him with a challenge that he seems only now to be seeing more clearly.
Philip Rucker and William Wan wrote in the Washington Post:
Trump adopted a newly somber and sedate tone — and contradicted many of his own previous assessments of the virus — as he instructed Americans to continue social distancing, school closures and other mitigation efforts for an additional 30 days and to think of the choices they make as matters of life and death.
James Hohmann wrote for the Post:
The president’s newfound respect for – and deference to – experts, careerists and technocrats is part of an even more dramatic shift in his tone over the past few days as the gravity of the crisis enveloping the country appeared to fully sink in.
CBS News anchor Norah O’Donnell intoned: “It seems like today is the day the reality of the staggering death toll hit hard at the White House.”
It was so predictable, it was depressing. Here is part of a Twitter thread from NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen:
Just watch the word "sober" tonight. Online and on TV. It will be like an x-ray. — Jay Rosen (@jayrosen_nyu) March 31, 2020
On NPR’s “All Things Considered,” host Ailsa Chang told listeners that “President Trump prepared the country for the difficult days ahead in tonight’s coronavirus task force briefing.”
Fortunately, science writer Richard Harris brought some needed clarity to the matter:
HARRIS: Well, they finally laid out the data from the models that they’ve been using. And the basic idea that they tell, the story they tell is this whole thing will peak in about mid-April if the models are correct, and then it will slowly fade. It will not be the burst of light that the president referred to, but more of a long deep sigh. Dr. Anthony Fauci from the National Institutes of Health says cases will gradually fall after the peak, but we’ll be seeing deaths for some time after that because time elapses between the time a person’s case is reported and an eventual death.
And while it came late in Tuesday’s seemingly endless news conference, Trump engaged in a fascinating exchange with CNN’s Jim Acosta, in which he attempted to assert a number of contradictory claims to the effect that he knew all along how severe the crisis could be, but that he didn’t want to be negative, but that he was being negative, but that it would be all over soon:
Acosta: Going back to your comments about what could have happened and the actions that you took, is there any fairness to the criticism that you may have lulled Americans into a false sense of security when you were saying things like, “It’s going to go away.” Trump: Well, it is. Acosta: And that sort of thing. Trump: It’s going to go away. Hopefully at the end of the month and if not it hopefully will be soon after that.
As for his previous optimism:
Trump: I think from the beginning, my attitude was that we have to give this country… I knew how bad it was. All you have to do is look at what was going on in China. It was devastation. Well, yeah, look at the numbers from China, those initial numbers coming out from China. But I read an article today which was very interesting. They say, “We wish president Trump would give more bad news.” Give bad news. I’m not about bad news. I want to give people hope. I want to give people a feeling that we all have a chance… Acosta: You weren’t just hoping that it would dissipate, that this would disappear? Trump: I want to be positive. I don’t want to be negative…. I’m a cheerleader for the country. We’re going through the worst thing that the country’s probably ever seen. Look, we had the Civil War, we lost 600,000 people, right? Here’s the thing, had we not done anything, we would have lost many times that, but we did something and so it’s going to be hopefully way under that, but we lose more here potentially than you lose in world wars as a country. So there’s nothing positive, there’s nothing great about it, but I want to give people in this country hope. I think it’s very important. Acosta: Did you know it was going to be this severe when you were saying this was under control and — Trump: I knew everything. I knew it could be horrible and I knew it could be maybe good. Don’t forget, at that time people didn’t know that much about it. Even the experts, we were talking about it. We didn’t know where it was going… But I don’t want to be a negative person. It’d be so much easier for me to come up and say, “We have bad news. We’re going to lose 220,000 people and it’s going to happen over the next few weeks.” And with that, I did start off by saying today, long before this question, I said, “This is going to be a rough two or three weeks.” This is going to be one of the roughest two or three weeks we’ve ever had in our country. We’re going to lose thousands of people…. When you see the kind of numbers that we’re witnessing, we’ve never seen numbers like that. So it’s easy to be negative and then everybody could be negative. But I’m a cheerleader for our country, and I want to do a great job so the number can be kept … And I’ve always said it. I want as few a number of people to die as possible and that’s all we’re working on.
So here’s a clause reporters can use next time Trump shares ridiculously optimistic projections that have no basis in fact: “Trump, who has previously acknowledged that he is ‘not about bad news,’ …”
Politico editor John Harris has a new essay out making the now-tired argument that Trump’s “bluster, defiance, implacable self-promotion” have “served him quite well” in the past, but no longer. He concludes:
If there is any common trait of failed presidents, it is incapacity for growth — a reliance on old habits and thinking even when events demand the opposite.
Elite political reporters keep trying to write about how Trump is changing. But he never will.
(Please read more of my critiques of Trump and the coronavirus coverage, and consider making a donation to keep Press Watch going.)