presswatchers--2020-09-25--Finally, at least for now, alarm bells go off in some of our top newsrooms

I am happy to report that some of the leaders of our top newsrooms seem to have finally realized , at least for the moment , that Donald Trump presents a grave danger to our democracy .
It took arguably the most outrageously anti-democratic statement by an American president ever – and nearly a whole news cycle , during which many of us gnashed our teeth – but some major news organizations are finally responding with the strong headlines and alarming rhetoric that the moment requires .
I was particularly impressed with Lester Holt , who led the NBC Nightly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he led off one of several related news segments like this : NBC White House correspondent Peter Alexander proceeded to report that “ with the election just 40 days away , President Trump , trailing Joe Biden in most polls , is bulldozing one of the fundamental principles of American democracy , refusing to commit to the peaceful transfer of power.
” Holt also introduced a report about early voters in Michigan , calling “ the president ’ s comments in the transfer of power very much in the minds of voters.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news is one of the last , best vectors when it comes to getting the truth to low-information voters .
Sadly , the other broadcast networks were considerably more muted .
Norah O ’ Donnell , on the CBS Evening News , led off with the much less strident : “ Down in battleground state polls , tonight President Trump says he ’ s not sure this year ’ s election will be honest , and he ’ s falsely claiming tonight that mail-in voting is a whole big scam.
” And on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s World News Tonight , David Muir only briefly noted Trump ’ s “ stunning claim ” at the top .
White House correspondent Jonathan Karl reported that Trump had “ sparked outrage.
” The boldest Karl got was when , after airing Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany ’ s assertion that “ the president will accept the results of a free and fair election , ” he noted that “ it ’ s not clear that assurance means anything ; the president has gone from warning about possible voter fraud to effectively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is already rigged.
” In another significant shift , our two major national newspapers finally roused themselves from their slumber .
After burying their initial stories on A15 and A4 , here ’ s what their front pages looked like on Friday : The Post in particular redeemed itself with a no-holds-barred opening salvo .
Philip Rucker , Amy Gardner and Annie Linskey wrote : I appreciate how they made it clear this was not an isolated incident : And they included appropriately alarming quotes — not from “ critics ” but from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Reid J. Epstein , Emily Cochrane and Glenn Thrush ’ s story started with a strong opening paragraph : But , sadly , they quickly attributed the essential context to “ Democrats ” : At least they quoted experts as well as “ critics ” : At the Los Angeles Times Evan Halper , Eli Stokols and David G. Savage ‘ s newspaper-leading story tied Trump ’ s comments into his longstanding , concerted attempts to steal the election .
They also noted Trump ’ s heavy spending on “ in-house lawyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jones Day in Washington and the Los Angeles firm of Charles Harder , which specializes in media defamation suits.
” The Associated Press , which is so hit-or-miss on holding Trump accountable , mostly failed to capture the gravity of the situation , focusing instead on the ( admittedly dramatic ) reaction .
But the AP story – especially with a blunt headline – still packed some punch by the time it made it to many American doorsteps .
( See below . )
How it played across the USA It wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finally took notice of the danger .
Many regional and local ones did , too .
Consider the front pages of the Miami Herald : And the particularly blunt Minneapolis Star-Tribune : The Hartford Courant , in Connecticut , supplemented a wire story with its own reporting by Michael Hamad that the state ’ s top elected Republican was critical of Trump ’ s comments — but that Connecticut GOP party leader J.R. Romano instead responded with nonsense about how “ The Courant ignores comments like ‘ You ain ’ t Black ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also small newspapers like the Milford ( Massachusetts ) Daily News : Several newspapers owned by Lee Enterprises and Capital Newspapers led with that AP story , with the same punch headline , including Iowa ’ s Sioux City Journal : Before you get too excited None of this means that our top news editors have actually gone into panic mode – as they should .
Indeed , the primary focus of these stories – Trump ’ s refusal to make an easy , specific promise – leaves open the distinct possibility that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dutifully say the necessary words and news editors will decide the issue has been resolved .
( As if he doesn ’ t lie all the time . )
But what matters about the words — the reason they deserve so much attention — is not just that he said them , it ’ s what he revealed , and all the evidence that supports it .
As media critic Eric Boehlert wrote in his Press Run newsletter on Friday : “ Trump is trying to steal an election , and the press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Election Day.
” The other possible downside is that the coverage of Trump ’ s attempts to steal the election drown out – rather than supplement – the coverage of the ongoing national crisis that remains the single most important news story in this country and in the election .
On that front , even as the Washington Post was distinguishing itself with its coverage of Trump ’ s threat to democracy on Thursday , it was embarrassing itself with this absolutely horrible take by Josh Dawsey and Michael Scherer headlined “ As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see worry — and an advantage.
” They called that “ a risky strategy ” – on political terms alone .
And they included astonishingly normalizing observations , such as that “ several campaign and White House officials say Trump has not helped himself as much as he might have.
” ( See my July 17 post , “ Washington Post campaign reporters describe Trump ’ s epic failings as ‘ self-sabotage ’ “ . )
The fact is that Trump ’ s “ optimism ” is hardly sincere – it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killing scores of Americans every day .
The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington , for example , forecasts a dramatically increasing death rate in the U.S. over the next several months — which could be significantly slowed by precisely the kind of mask use that an “ optimistic ” Trump discourages .
Yes , Trump ’ s lies about the pandemic – just like his refusal to pledge to a peaceful transition – are relevant to the campaign .
But they are first and foremost gravely dangerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live in it .
Lester Holt , the Washington Post , and the others finally seem to have grasped this .
Let ’ s hope they don ’ t let go .

I am happy to report that some of the leaders of our top newsrooms seem to have finally realized, at least for the moment, that Donald Trump presents a grave danger to our democracy.
It took arguably the most outrageously anti-democratic statement by an American president ever – and nearly a whole news cycle, during which many of us gnashed our teeth – but some major news organizations are finally responding with the strong headlines and alarming rhetoric that the moment requires.
I was particularly impressed with Lester Holt, who led the NBC Nightly News with this unstinting language:
Tonight: President Trump’s unprecedented attack on America’s election; the president again today casting doubt on the legitimacy of the upcoming vote after refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses to Joe Biden.
And he led off one of several related news segments like this:
In a year and a season where shock is hardly in short supply, what may be among the most stunning words spoken by an American president are loudly resonating tonight: President Trump’s refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power should he lose the election the president dangling doubt over one of the most powerful rights of American democracy.
NBC White House correspondent Peter Alexander proceeded to report that “with the election just 40 days away, President Trump, trailing Joe Biden in most polls, is bulldozing one of the fundamental principles of American democracy, refusing to commit to the peaceful transfer of power.”
Holt also introduced a report about early voters in Michigan, calling “the president’s comments in the transfer of power very much in the minds of voters.”
This is huge, because the network news is one of the last, best vectors when it comes to getting the truth to low-information voters.
Sadly, the other broadcast networks were considerably more muted.
Norah O’Donnell, on the CBS Evening News, led off with the much less strident: “Down in battleground state polls, tonight President Trump says he’s not sure this year’s election will be honest, and he’s falsely claiming tonight that mail-in voting is a whole big scam.”
And on the most-watched show on television, ABC’s World News Tonight, David Muir only briefly noted Trump’s “stunning claim” at the top. White House correspondent Jonathan Karl reported that Trump had “sparked outrage.”
The boldest Karl got was when, after airing Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany’s assertion that “the president will accept the results of a free and fair election,” he noted that “it’s not clear that assurance means anything; the president has gone from warning about possible voter fraud to effectively declaring – without evidence – the election is already rigged.”
In another significant shift, our two major national newspapers finally roused themselves from their slumber. After burying their initial stories on A15 and A4, here’s what their front pages looked like on Friday:
The Post in particular redeemed itself with a no-holds-barred opening salvo. Philip Rucker, Amy Gardner and Annie Linskey wrote:
President Trump reiterated Thursday that he may not honor the results should he lose reelection, reaffirming his extraordinary refusal to commit to a peaceful transition of power and prompting election and law enforcement authorities nationwide to prepare for an unprecedented constitutional crisis. Trump escalated his months-long campaign to undermine the legitimacy of the Nov. 3 election with comments Wednesday that, taken together and at face value, pose his most substantial threat yet to the nation’s history of free and fair elections.
I appreciate how they made it clear this was not an isolated incident:
In recent days, the president cast doubt on the integrity of vote totals. He said he might not accept the results if they show him losing to Democratic nominee Joe Biden. He said it was imperative to quickly fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg because the nation’s high court could determine the winner of the election.
And they included appropriately alarming quotes — not from “critics” but from experts:
“For the first time in my life, and maybe for the first time since the Civil War, the fate of constitutional democracy in the United States is on the line, and it’s on the line because the president has put it there,” said William A. Galston, chair of the Brookings Institution’s Governance Studies Program. “It is a clear and present danger.”
In the New York Times, Reid J. Epstein, Emily Cochrane and Glenn Thrush’s story started with a strong opening paragraph:
President Trump declined for a second straight day to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he lost the election, repeating baseless assertions that the voting would be a “big scam,” even as leading Republicans scrambled to assure the public that their party would respect the Constitution.
But, sadly, they quickly attributed the essential context to “Democrats”:
Democrats were far less restrained, comparing Mr. Trump’s comments to those of an authoritarian leader and warning Americans to take his stance seriously.
At least they quoted experts as well as “critics”:
Chris Edelson, an American University professor who has studied the expansion of presidential power during national emergencies, said Mr. Trump’s comments represented a unique threat to a central pillar of democracy. “It’s impossible to underscore how absolutely extraordinary this situation is — there are really no precedents in our country,” he said. “This is a president who has threatened to jail his political opponents. Now he is suggesting he would not respect the results of an election. These are serious warning signs.” Douglas Brinkley, the presidential historian, said, “This may be the most damaging thing he has ever done to American democracy.”
At the Los Angeles Times Evan Halper, Eli Stokols and David G. Savage‘s newspaper-leading story tied Trump’s comments into his longstanding, concerted attempts to steal the election.
They wrote:
As President Trump, backed by his army of attorneys, has laid groundwork to undermine an election result that does not cast him as victor, Republican lawmakers found themselves in the astonishing position Thursday of having to reassure Americans there would be a peaceful transition of power should he lose.
They offered crucial background:
Already, the campaign has challenged election plans in a number of states and fought aggressively to curtail voter turnout. It has fought to reduce eligibility to vote by mail, purge voters from the rolls, tighten voter ID requirements, reduce or ban the use of drop boxes, and discard mail-in ballots that have technical flaws or arrive after election day.
They also noted Trump’s heavy spending on “in-house lawyers as well as attorneys from law firm Jones Day in Washington and the Los Angeles firm of Charles Harder, which specializes in media defamation suits.”
The Associated Press, which is so hit-or-miss on holding Trump accountable, mostly failed to capture the gravity of the situation, focusing instead on the (admittedly dramatic) reaction.
Lisa Mascaro, Aamer Madhani and Kevin Freking wrote:
President Donald Trump’s refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses drew swift blowback Thursday from both parties in Congress, and lawmakers turned to unprecedented steps to ensure he can’t ignore the vote of the people. Amid the uproar, Trump said anew he’s not sure the election will be “honest.”
But the AP story – especially with a blunt headline – still packed some punch by the time it made it to many American doorsteps. (See below.)
How it played across the USA
It wasn’t just the major news organizations that finally took notice of the danger. Many regional and local ones did, too. Consider the front pages of the Miami Herald:
The Orlando Sentinel:
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
The Seattle Times:
And the particularly blunt Minneapolis Star-Tribune:
The Hartford Courant, in Connecticut, supplemented a wire story with its own reporting by Michael Hamad that the state’s top elected Republican was critical of Trump’s comments — but that Connecticut GOP party leader J.R. Romano instead responded with nonsense about how “The Courant ignores comments like ‘You ain’t Black’ from Joe Biden.’”
And consider also small newspapers like the Milford (Massachusetts) Daily News:
Several newspapers owned by Lee Enterprises and Capital Newspapers led with that AP story, with the same punch headline, including Iowa’s Sioux City Journal:
And Wisconsin’s Baraboo News Republic:
Before you get too excited
None of this means that our top news editors have actually gone into panic mode – as they should.
Indeed, the primary focus of these stories – Trump’s refusal to make an easy, specific promise – leaves open the distinct possibility that he will, at some point, dutifully say the necessary words and news editors will decide the issue has been resolved. (As if he doesn’t lie all the time.)
But what matters about the words — the reason they deserve so much attention — is not just that he said them, it’s what he revealed, and all the evidence that supports it. As media critic Eric Boehlert wrote in his Press Run newsletter on Friday: “Trump is trying to steal an election, and the press should say so, every day until Election Day.”
The other possible downside is that the coverage of Trump’s attempts to steal the election drown out – rather than supplement – the coverage of the ongoing national crisis that remains the single most important news story in this country and in the election.
On that front, even as the Washington Post was distinguishing itself with its coverage of Trump’s threat to democracy on Thursday, it was embarrassing itself with this absolutely horrible take by Josh Dawsey and Michael Scherer headlined “As Trump exudes pandemic optimism, Democrats still see worry — and an advantage.”
The authors wrote:
The president is betting his political future on convincing voters that a recent dip in coronavirus cases, hospitalizations and deaths signals a coming end to the national nightmare — and is a reason to reassess his handling of the pandemic and vote for him.
They called that “a risky strategy” – on political terms alone. And they included astonishingly normalizing observations, such as that “several campaign and White House officials say Trump has not helped himself as much as he might have.” (See my July 17 post, “Washington Post campaign reporters describe Trump’s epic failings as ‘self-sabotage’“.)
The fact is that Trump’s “optimism” is hardly sincere – it’s contrived lunacy — and it’s killing scores of Americans every day.
The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, for example, forecasts a dramatically increasing death rate in the U.S. over the next several months — which could be significantly slowed by precisely the kind of mask use that an “optimistic” Trump discourages.
Yes, Trump’s lies about the pandemic – just like his refusal to pledge to a peaceful transition – are relevant to the campaign. But they are first and foremost gravely dangerous to the republic and the people who live in it.
Lester Holt, the Washington Post, and the others finally seem to have grasped this. Let’s hope they don’t let go.


presswatchers--2020-09-29--Beware the debate coverage

Beware the debate coverage

The basic problem with political debate coverage is that it plays to all the worst instincts of elite political reporters , most notably their tendency to treat the presidential election as if it were a sporting event like a horserace or a boxing match .
As I wrote in my essay explaining the excess of horserace coverage , that ’ s because “ who ’ s winning ?
” and “ how are the optics ?
” are vastly easier and less controversial questions for most political journalists to raise — and answer — than “ who ’ s right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good idea ?
” But sports-style coverage has never been more inappropriate than it is today , because it also fundamentally equates the two candidates .
It suggests that they are playing the same game , when they are playing entirely different games .
It casts them as competing on an even playing field , when they are nor playing by remotely the same rules .
First and foremost , of course , Trump notoriously doesn ’ t care about facts .
Debate rules should require truth-telling , and include methods for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exact some sort of penalty .
But real-time fact-checking has actually been ruled out by the debate organizers ( to their shame ) .
The sport-style coverage also normalizes this highly abnormal election .
The story of this race is not : Biden and Trump are both running for president , you pick .
It ’ s : America is on a precipice .
As I wrote in my inaugural Press Watch column , 11 months ago – before impeachment !
Before the pandemic !
– re-electing Trump would be an act of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to have debates , and journalists need to cover them .
But that coverage will almost inevitably focus on zingers and optics rather than on the vast imbalance between the two candidates and the vast difference in what this country will be like four years from now depending on who wins .
Even before the debate , Trump was already making outrageous insinuations against Biden — projecting , if past is prologue — and the New York Times simply considered it a sign of the “ absence of guardrails.
” And don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is currently practiced to solve anything .
While I ’ ll eagerly watch what looks to be an aggressive fact-checking initiative from CNN , I don ’ t think fact-checking should be independent of the main coverage .
And as it happens , the worst sports analogy I ’ ve seen lately actually came in Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler ’ s debate preview on Tuesday morning , in which he wrote that “ Biden is in the middleweight or welterweight class .
Trump , however , is the heavyweight champion of falsehoods.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are both engaging in the same sport — when any thinking journalists knows that they are not .

The basic problem with political debate coverage is that it plays to all the worst instincts of elite political reporters, most notably their tendency to treat the presidential election as if it were a sporting event like a horserace or a boxing match.
As I wrote in my essay explaining the excess of horserace coverage, that’s because “who’s winning?” and “how are the optics?” are vastly easier and less controversial questions for most political journalists to raise — and answer — than “who’s right?” and “is that a good idea?”
But sports-style coverage has never been more inappropriate than it is today, because it also fundamentally equates the two candidates. It suggests that they are playing the same game, when they are playing entirely different games. It casts them as competing on an even playing field, when they are nor playing by remotely the same rules.
First and foremost, of course, Trump notoriously doesn’t care about facts. Debate rules should require truth-telling, and include methods for the moderators to call out outrageous violations and exact some sort of penalty. But real-time fact-checking has actually been ruled out by the debate organizers (to their shame).
The sport-style coverage also normalizes this highly abnormal election.
The story of this race is not: Biden and Trump are both running for president, you pick. It’s: America is on a precipice. As I wrote in my inaugural Press Watch column, 11 months ago – before impeachment! Before the pandemic! – re-electing Trump would be an act of collective national insanity.
It’s only truer today.
Of course we need to have debates, and journalists need to cover them. But that coverage will almost inevitably focus on zingers and optics rather than on the vast imbalance between the two candidates and the vast difference in what this country will be like four years from now depending on who wins.
Even before the debate, Trump was already making outrageous insinuations against Biden — projecting, if past is prologue — and the New York Times simply considered it a sign of the “absence of guardrails.”
And don’t look to journalistic fact-checking as is currently practiced to solve anything. While I’ll eagerly watch what looks to be an aggressive fact-checking initiative from CNN, I don’t think fact-checking should be independent of the main coverage.
And as it happens, the worst sports analogy I’ve seen lately actually came in Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler’s debate preview on Tuesday morning, in which he wrote that “Biden is in the middleweight or welterweight class. Trump, however, is the heavyweight champion of falsehoods.”
The framing was clear: That they are both engaging in the same sport — when any thinking journalists knows that they are not.


presswatchers--2020-09-30--Trump wasn’t just telling his people what to do, he was showing them how to do it

The one good thing about Tuesday night ’ s presidential debate is that , as thriller-writer Richard North Patterson noted for the Bulwark , Trump ’ s “ nakedly unshackled sociopathy virtually obliterated conventional political analysis.
” You could see it happen in real time .
Almost all the major news organizations I was watching started the evening with lame , both-sides headlines ( “ Sharp Personal Attacks and Name Calling in First Presidential Debate , ” at the New York Times , for instance . )
But after a few hours , the tone changed in most places .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for even timid , risk-averse editors to cover for him anymore , and the headlines began to reflect the dismal , one-sided reality of what had just happened .
For the Washington Post , that meant : “ Trump incessantly interrupts and insults Biden as they spar in acrimonious first debate.
” For the New York Times , that meant : “ With Cross Talk , Lies and Mockery , Trump Tramples Decorum in Debate With Biden.
” And , on Wednesday — very significantly — “ Tuesday ’ s Debate Made Clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The President Himself.
” One notable exception was the Associated Press , which despite some blistering sidebars , maintained a gutless and shameless passive-voiced neutrality in its mainbar .
( I really want to know who was in charge over there . )
But even the best coverage didn ’ t make a connection that I think is hugely important .
There was a lot written about Trump ’ s style : bellicose , hysterical , unstoppable , rule-breaking , trampling over anyone in his way .
And there was a lot written @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telling white supremacists to “ stand by ” ; ordering his supporter to “ go into the polls ” ; predicting a fraudulent election ; screaming about “ law and order.
” What the coverage failed to capture , however , was how the style and the substance relate .
Trump was both telling his base what to do and showing them how to act .
He was telling them to be prepared to fight – and to break the rules .
For him , and like him .
And seen together , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for what he was preaching : it ’ s fascism .
It had nothing to do with winning an election , and everything to do with stealing it .
Let ’ s go to the transcript .
Consider when Chris Wallace asked him “ are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia group and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence ?
“ Trump eventually responded : “ Proud Boys , stand back and stand by .
But I ’ ll tell you what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Antifa and the left because this is not a right wing problem this is a left wing.
” Wallace asked : “ Will you urge your supporters to stay calm during this extended period , not to engage in any civil unrest ?
And will you pledge tonight that you will not declare victory until the election has been independently certified ?
” Trump replied : “ I ’ m urging my supporters to go in to the polls and watch very carefully , because that ’ s what has to happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it.
” And , he said , “ if I see tens of thousands of ballots being manipulated , I can ’ t go along with that.
” Trump also claimed the loyalty of the military ( inaccurately ) and law enforcement ( more accurately ) : “ We just got the support of 250 military leaders and generals , total support .
Law enforcement , almost every law enforcement group in the United States .
I have Florida .
I have Texas .
I have Ohio .
I have every… Excuse me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out today and he said , ‘ I support President Trump.
’ ” ( The sheriff , as it happened , soon tweeted : “ I have never supported Donald Trump and will never support him.
” ) And he bragged about the extrajudicial execution of antifa supporter Michael Reinoehl in early September , who was shot without warning by a ragtag federal task force .
“ I sent in the U.S .
Marshals to get the killer of a young man in the middle of the street and they shot him , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days Portland didn ’ t do anything .
I sent in the U.S .
Marshals they took care of business.
” And all the time he was lying and interrupting , breaking the ground rules his campaign had agreed to .
Esquire politics blogger and veteran truth-teller Charles P. Pierce got it exactly right when he wrote that “ the only story from Tuesday night ” was “ the great , looming , consistent threat emerging from whatever the hell that event became.
” He explained : It was pure fascism , right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he stole from Mussolini , but it was fascism at the behest of a career failure who was sending out a call for anyone else with a sense of failure and a long gun..
He wants a race war .
He wants a civil war .
He wants to bring it all down and get rich selling off the wreckage… .
He wants his own private Belarus , with his own private militias at polling places , and in the streets if he loses , and he ’ s fixing things to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week that some leaders of our top newsrooms are finally openly acknowledging that Trump presents a grave danger to our democracy .
The New York Times took another major step in that direction on Wednesday , unleashing a David E. Sanger analysis of the debate with this uncompromising declaration : President Trump ’ s angry insistence in the last minutes of Tuesday ’ s debate that there was no way the presidential election could be conducted without fraud amounted to an extraordinary declaration by a sitting American president that he would try @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Congress or the streets if he was not re-elected .
His comments came after four years of debate about the possibility of foreign interference in the 2020 election and how to counter such disruptions .
But they were a stark reminder that the most direct threat to the electoral process now comes from the president of the United States himself .
But while Sanger noted that Trump importuning his supporters to go into the polls “ seemed to be code words for a campaign of voter intimidation , ” overall he gave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump is so clearly calling for .
Political analysts , shocked to their bones , are calling this a debacle for Trump , pointing out that his hectoring , bullying , and rule-breaking didn ’ t win over any converts , and muddied his message .
But what if the rule-breaking was the message ?
Then Trump may have made progress — not in winning the election , but in taking it by force .

The one good thing about Tuesday night’s presidential debate is that, as thriller-writer Richard North Patterson noted for the Bulwark, Trump’s “nakedly unshackled sociopathy virtually obliterated conventional political analysis.”
You could see it happen in real time. Almost all the major news organizations I was watching started the evening with lame, both-sides headlines (“Sharp Personal Attacks and Name Calling in First Presidential Debate,” at the New York Times, for instance.) But after a few hours, the tone changed in most places.
Finally, Trump had gone too far for even timid, risk-averse editors to cover for him anymore, and the headlines began to reflect the dismal, one-sided reality of what had just happened.
For the Washington Post, that meant: “Trump incessantly interrupts and insults Biden as they spar in acrimonious first debate.”
For the New York Times, that meant: “With Cross Talk, Lies and Mockery, Trump Tramples Decorum in Debate With Biden.” And, on Wednesday — very significantly — “Tuesday’s Debate Made Clear the Gravest Threat to the Election: The President Himself.”
One notable exception was the Associated Press, which despite some blistering sidebars, maintained a gutless and shameless passive-voiced neutrality in its mainbar. (I really want to know who was in charge over there.)
But even the best coverage didn’t make a connection that I think is hugely important.
There was a lot written about Trump’s style: bellicose, hysterical, unstoppable, rule-breaking, trampling over anyone in his way.
And there was a lot written about the racist, anti-democratic substance: telling white supremacists to “stand by”; ordering his supporter to “go into the polls”; predicting a fraudulent election; screaming about “law and order.”
What the coverage failed to capture, however, was how the style and the substance relate.
Trump was both telling his base what to do and showing them how to act. He was telling them to be prepared to fight – and to break the rules. For him, and like him.
And seen together, there’s really only one word for what he was preaching: it’s fascism. It had nothing to do with winning an election, and everything to do with stealing it.
Let’s go to the transcript.
Consider when Chris Wallace asked him “are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia group and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence?“
Trump eventually responded: “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. But I’ll tell you what somebody’s got to do something about Antifa and the left because this is not a right wing problem this is a left wing.”
Wallace asked: “Will you urge your supporters to stay calm during this extended period, not to engage in any civil unrest? And will you pledge tonight that you will not declare victory until the election has been independently certified?”
Trump replied: “I’m urging my supporters to go in to the polls and watch very carefully, because that’s what has to happen. I am urging them to do it.” And, he said, “if I see tens of thousands of ballots being manipulated, I can’t go along with that.”
Trump also claimed the loyalty of the military (inaccurately) and law enforcement (more accurately): “We just got the support of 250 military leaders and generals, total support. Law enforcement, almost every law enforcement group in the United States. I have Florida. I have Texas. I have Ohio. I have every… Excuse me, Portland, the sheriff just came out today and he said, ‘I support President Trump.’” (The sheriff, as it happened, soon tweeted: “I have never supported Donald Trump and will never support him.”)
And he bragged about the extrajudicial execution of antifa supporter Michael Reinoehl in early September, who was shot without warning by a ragtag federal task force. “I sent in the U.S. Marshals to get the killer of a young man in the middle of the street and they shot him,” Trump said. “For three days Portland didn’t do anything. I sent in the U.S. Marshals they took care of business.”
And all the time he was lying and interrupting, breaking the ground rules his campaign had agreed to.
Esquire politics blogger and veteran truth-teller Charles P. Pierce got it exactly right when he wrote that “the only story from Tuesday night” was “the great, looming, consistent threat emerging from whatever the hell that event became.” He explained:
It was pure fascism, right down to the set of his chin that he stole from Mussolini, but it was fascism at the behest of a career failure who was sending out a call for anyone else with a sense of failure and a long gun.. He wants a race war. He wants a civil war. He wants to bring it all down and get rich selling off the wreckage…. He wants his own private Belarus, with his own private militias at polling places, and in the streets if he loses, and he’s fixing things to get it, too.
I wrote last week that some leaders of our top newsrooms are finally openly acknowledging that Trump presents a grave danger to our democracy. The New York Times took another major step in that direction on Wednesday, unleashing a David E. Sanger analysis of the debate with this uncompromising declaration:
President Trump’s angry insistence in the last minutes of Tuesday’s debate that there was no way the presidential election could be conducted without fraud amounted to an extraordinary declaration by a sitting American president that he would try to throw any outcome into the courts, Congress or the streets if he was not re-elected. His comments came after four years of debate about the possibility of foreign interference in the 2020 election and how to counter such disruptions. But they were a stark reminder that the most direct threat to the electoral process now comes from the president of the United States himself.
But while Sanger noted that Trump importuning his supporters to go into the polls “seemed to be code words for a campaign of voter intimidation,” overall he gave short shrift to the lawlessness and violence Trump is so clearly calling for.
Political analysts, shocked to their bones, are calling this a debacle for Trump, pointing out that his hectoring, bullying, and rule-breaking didn’t win over any converts, and muddied his message.
But what if the rule-breaking was the message? Then Trump may have made progress — not in winning the election, but in taking it by force.


presswatchers--2020-10-02--Don’t forget for a minute this was his own damn fault

Political journalists covering the highly dramatic news that Donald Trump has been sickened by Covid-19 have been engaged in a public search for the right tone .
They are understandably intent that their giddiness about a huge story not appear to be gloating .
As a result , you are hearing and reading in their reports a lot of sympathy , shock , and concern – amid a whole lot of unanswered questions .
But it ’ s not gloating to point out that this could have been avoided if Trump had taken the obvious and proper precautions that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The entirely self-inflicted nature of this tragedy is one of its central elements , as is the way Trump ’ s incredible irresponsibility and arrogance was mimicked by his supporters , significantly exacerbating the pandemic .
It ’ s a hugely important element of what ’ s going on here .
Moments after breaking the news on CNN early Friday morning , anchor Robyn Curnow asked UCLA epidemiologist Ann Rimoin if Trump had essentially been playing Russian roulette .
“ This has been the issue all along , ” Rimoin said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those people close to Donald Trump , all on the White House Task Force , the CDC , Dr. Fauci , have all said how important it is to wear a mask .
How important social distancing is .
And how critical it is to be able to stop the spread of the virus .
And unfortunately , the Trump team has not done a good job of doing this or setting an example.
” Also in the early hours , Dr. Vin Gupta told MSNBC : “ This was avoidable .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were practicing the proper procedures and not going to these rallies and having these chaotic events , where , of course , airborne exposure was going to happen even if it was in an outdoor setting .
No masking , no distancing — what did they expect was going to happen ?
” I have always trusted science and medical reporters over political reporters to get pandemic news straight and in its proper context .
The great Helen Branswell led off her initial story for the health news site Stat this way : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how obvious it was all along that Trump ’ s only real precaution — the frequent use of diagnostic tests not widely available to others – wasn ’ t nearly enough : The initial reporting from the political press corps didn ’ t focus on how Trump did this to himself – but was pretty blunt about how politically embarrassing it was after all his rhetoric minimizing the virus .
The first paragraph of Josh Dawsey and Colby Itkowitz ’ s breaking news story for the Washington Post described Trump ’ s announcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has often played down a pandemic that has killed more than 205,000 Americans and sickened millions more.
” Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman were admirably direct in their New York Times story , writing that even if Trump “ does not become seriously ill , the positive test could prove devastating to his political fortunes given his months of diminishing the seriousness of the pandemic even as the virus was still ravaging the country and killing about 1,000 more Americans every day.
” The second sentence of the first story by Zeke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AP wire noted : “ The positive test comes a month until the election and after the president has spent the year largely downplaying the threat of the virus.
” But as time went on , the AP backed away from that construction , replacing it with a much less useful clause about how “ the virus that has killed more than 205,000 Americans spread to the highest reaches of the U.S. government just a month before the presidential election.
” In fact , I ’ m seeing less context rather than more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plot thickens .
That ’ s understandable to some extent , but it ’ s important not to lose sight of the bigger picture .
This happened for a reason – and it was a very bad reason .
As Jeet Heer wrote in the Nation : “ Now is not the time to be euphemistic about Trump ’ s recklessness.
” He wrote : The Los Angeles Times editorial board described Trump as a “ reckless president whose irresponsibility has endangered not only himself and his family but the stability of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chaos.
” The argument against the “ thoughts and prayers ” response to the tragedy was made with particular eloquence by author Naomi Klein on Democracy Now .
“ I really think we should see Trump getting COVID as the epidemiological equivalent of a mass shooting where the shooter opens fire on the crowd , and then turns the gun on himself , ” she said .
“ This is not a tragic accident — it is a crime scene , and should be treated as such.
” We need more reporting like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who wrote that after so many ridiculous Trumpian assertions of invincibility , “ the chickens have come home to roost , just as they did for the similarly cavalier British prime minister , Boris Johnson , and the Brazilian president , Jair Bolsonaro.
” And we need more brave truth-telling like this from CNN ’ s Jake Tapper , on Friday afternoon : “ Make no mistake , this was not just reckless behavior , this was a demonstration of a wanton disregard for human life .
President Trump , now in quarantine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own failures.
” But I fear that , especially if Trump ’ s condition worsens , the attention will shift so entirely to the coverage of incremental developments and the political fallout that the American public will be deprived of this crucial context : that he brought it upon himself .

Political journalists covering the highly dramatic news that Donald Trump has been sickened by Covid-19 have been engaged in a public search for the right tone.
They are understandably intent that their giddiness about a huge story not appear to be gloating. As a result, you are hearing and reading in their reports a lot of sympathy, shock, and concern – amid a whole lot of unanswered questions.
But it’s not gloating to point out that this could have been avoided if Trump had taken the obvious and proper precautions that he petulantly and ignorantly chose not to.
The entirely self-inflicted nature of this tragedy is one of its central elements, as is the way Trump’s incredible irresponsibility and arrogance was mimicked by his supporters, significantly exacerbating the pandemic. It’s a hugely important element of what’s going on here.
A common-sense initial reaction
Moments after breaking the news on CNN early Friday morning, anchor Robyn Curnow asked UCLA epidemiologist Ann Rimoin if Trump had essentially been playing Russian roulette.
“This has been the issue all along,” Rimoin said. “All of the public health experts including those people close to Donald Trump, all on the White House Task Force, the CDC, Dr. Fauci, have all said how important it is to wear a mask. How important social distancing is. And how critical it is to be able to stop the spread of the virus. And unfortunately, the Trump team has not done a good job of doing this or setting an example.”
Also in the early hours, Dr. Vin Gupta told MSNBC: “This was avoidable. This did not have to happen if they were practicing the proper procedures and not going to these rallies and having these chaotic events, where, of course, airborne exposure was going to happen even if it was in an outdoor setting. No masking, no distancing — what did they expect was going to happen?”
I have always trusted science and medical reporters over political reporters to get pandemic news straight and in its proper context. The great Helen Branswell led off her initial story for the health news site Stat this way:
President Donald Trump, who has frequently dismissed the significance of the Covid-19 pandemic and rarely wears masks in public, has contracted the coronavirus and is now in quarantine, he announced early Friday morning on Twitter.
Her Stat colleague Lev Facher wrote about how obvious it was all along that Trump’s only real precaution — the frequent use of diagnostic tests not widely available to others – wasn’t nearly enough:
To some public health experts, the news came as little surprise. Many have long warned that testing is inadequate as a preventive measure without other baseline mitigation strategies. “If you told me that somebody who was only testing, not wearing their mask, not distancing, and not taking every other precautionary measure tested positive,” said Saskia Popescu, a University of Arizona epidemiology professor and biodefense expert, “I would say: No shit, Sherlock.”
The political press
The initial reporting from the political press corps didn’t focus on how Trump did this to himself – but was pretty blunt about how politically embarrassing it was after all his rhetoric minimizing the virus.
The first paragraph of Josh Dawsey and Colby Itkowitz’s breaking news story for the Washington Post described Trump’s announcement as coming “after months in which he has often played down a pandemic that has killed more than 205,000 Americans and sickened millions more.”
Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman were admirably direct in their New York Times story, writing that even if Trump “does not become seriously ill, the positive test could prove devastating to his political fortunes given his months of diminishing the seriousness of the pandemic even as the virus was still ravaging the country and killing about 1,000 more Americans every day.”
The second sentence of the first story by Zeke Miller and Jill Colvin moving across the AP wire noted: “The positive test comes a month until the election and after the president has spent the year largely downplaying the threat of the virus.”
But as time went on, the AP backed away from that construction, replacing it with a much less useful clause about how “the virus that has killed more than 205,000 Americans spread to the highest reaches of the U.S. government just a month before the presidential election.”
In fact, I’m seeing less context rather than more as the coverage continues — and the plot thickens. That’s understandable to some extent, but it’s important not to lose sight of the bigger picture.
This happened for a reason – and it was a very bad reason.
As Jeet Heer wrote in the Nation: “Now is not the time to be euphemistic about Trump’s recklessness.” He wrote:
A president contracting a disease thanks in large part to his own rashness is a political fact as well as a personal one. We can express, if we are so inclined, sympathy on a human level for Trump, but his thoughtlessness has wider consequences that need to be called out.
The Los Angeles Times editorial board described Trump as a “reckless president whose irresponsibility has endangered not only himself and his family but the stability of the country by throwing the executive branch into chaos.”
The argument against the “thoughts and prayers” response to the tragedy was made with particular eloquence by author Naomi Klein on Democracy Now. “I really think we should see Trump getting COVID as the epidemiological equivalent of a mass shooting where the shooter opens fire on the crowd, and then turns the gun on himself,” she said. “This is not a tragic accident — it is a crime scene, and should be treated as such.”
New York Daily Cartoonist Bill Bramhall contributed this
Going forward
We need more reporting like the Guardian article by David Smith, who wrote that after so many ridiculous Trumpian assertions of invincibility, “the chickens have come home to roost, just as they did for the similarly cavalier British prime minister, Boris Johnson, and the Brazilian president, Jair Bolsonaro.”
And we need more brave truth-telling like this from CNN’s Jake Tapper, on Friday afternoon: “Make no mistake, this was not just reckless behavior, this was a demonstration of a wanton disregard for human life. President Trump, now in quarantine, has become a symbol of his own failures.”
But I fear that, especially if Trump’s condition worsens, the attention will shift so entirely to the coverage of incremental developments and the political fallout that the American public will be deprived of this crucial context: that he brought it upon himself.


presswatchers--2020-10-05--What is the White House hiding the hardest? That’s where to push.

Amid all the essential questions that the White House refuses to answer about Donald Trump and Covid-19 , journalists should pay particular attention to the ones it is refusing to answer most aggressively .
Possibly chief among those is : When was Trump ’ s last negative test ?
Reporters have repeatedly asked , and the Trump team steadfastly refuses to say , even though there ought to be nothing remotely controversial about it .
“ I don ’ t want to go backwards , ” was the latest smiling brush-off , this one from Trump doctor Sean Conley on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he chuckled after he was asked again , and again refused to say .
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany , who has since tested positive herself , was asked on Sunday if Trump had been tested before he went to the debate on Tuesday .
McEnany bristled : “ Yeah , I ’ m not going to give you a detailed readout with timestamps every time the president ’ s tested.
” What this strongly suggests , of course , is that Trump ’ s last negative test was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he either wasn ’ t tested — or even tested positive – before Tuesday night ’ s debate .
That positive-test-result scenario isn ’ t inconceivable if you consider that the White House seems to consider results from its highly problematic rapid-response tests dispositive only when they are negative .
We need to find out when Trump ’ s last negative test was .
We need to find out how often Trump was tested .
And of course we need to find out if he had a positive test before the ones on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House timeline , Trump tested positive on a rapid-response test Thursday evening – then basically lied to Fox News ’ s Sean Hannity by saying he didn ’ t have results yet – before it was “ confirmed ” with a more reliable test later that night , making it official .
But did he test positive on a rapid-response test before that ?
Or – another possibility — did he stop taking regular tests precisely because he had reason to believe he was infected ?
As Reuters reporter Jeff Mason told Democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing they have been saying repeatedly throughout the last several weeks and months of this pandemic is that he is tested very regularly .
I think many people assume that that would mean that he is tested on a daily basis , which would have included that Tuesday of that debate.
” Everybody besides Trump and his entourage was tested independently , but Trump arrived too late .
Debate moderator and Fox News host Chris Wallace said that Trump was on the “ honor system ” .
If Trump can be shown to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infected on Tuesday — or earlier — then the world will know he chose to endanger Biden and everyone else at the debate rather than do the responsible thing and bow out .
And as we can never forget , Trump was even more irritable and sweaty than usual that night .
Similarly , on Wednesday , Trump traveled to Minnesota for a rally but inexplicably cut it short .
Of course , Trump putting his own interests ahead of everyone else ’ s would hardly be out of character .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a fundraiser in New Jersey on Thursday after knowing – at the very least !
— that he had been exposed to Covid via his adviser Hope Hicks .
According to rules that most of the rest of us follow , he should have quarantined right then and there – at the very latest .
Another hugely important topic that Trump ’ s team has been cagey about is contact tracing .
Assuming that the Sept. 26 Rose Garden party for Amy Coney Barrett was a super-spreader event , which it certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d think they ’ d want to find out what happened and try to stop the spread going forward .
In fact , they seem to be preventing it .
This despite the fact that , as Apoorva Mandavilli and Tracey Tully wrote in the New York Times on Monday : The obvious question then is : What are they hiding ?
It ’ s an enormous outbreak , so everything about it is embarrassing , but the brazenness of the response suggest they are worried about something specific coming out about how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And when you think about , the most likely reasons are either that the White House ’ s testing system coughed up a critical false negative — or that someone who should have been tested wasn ’ t .
As with most other White House visitors allowed in proximity to the president , attendees were tested using the Abbott Laboratories ID Now rapid test .
But as Sarah Toy and Daniela Hernandez reported for the Wall Street Journal on Sunday : “ Some studies have shown that the Abbott Now ID test @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minutes , has around a 91 % sensitivity—meaning 9 % of tests can produce false negatives.
” They quoted Ashish Jha , dean of Brown University ’ s School of Public Health , as saying : “ A metal detector that misses 10 % of weapons—you ’ d never , ever say that ’ s our only layer of protection for the president.
” So that ’ s possibility No .
1 : That the White House ’ s vaunted protection mechanism against outsiders carrying the virus is ineffective — and did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social-distancing rules that have been amply chronicled at the event .
But possibility No .
2 is that the super-spreading was an inside job – that White House staffers attending the event had either been poorly tested or not tested at all .
Rachana Pradhan , Lauren Weber and Liz Szabo reported for Kaiser Health News on Friday that the White House has been using a new , different test – an antigen test , also from Abbott Laboratories — to screen its own staff : So maybe that test failed spectacularly .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ House staff isn ’ t being tested as diligently as we thought .
That would be consistent with the White House ’ s refusal to say when Trump himself last tested negative .
And it would be in character .
Isn ’ t it likely , even , that Trump ’ s family and other favorites weren ’ t being tested very often at all ?
And that one of them brought the virus to the party ?
That would be a secret worth fighting to protect .
Another question the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump get his IV with the super-experimental Regeneron cocktail ?
The cocktail is considered most likely to be effective before the infection really sets in , so it ’ s safe to assume he took it fairly soon after his medical team realized he was infected .
At the Saturday press conference , medical-team member Brian Garibaldi said Trump had received the cocktail 48 hour earlier — which would be Thursday morning .
In a memo ostensibly “ correcting ” that statement — as well as Conley ’ s own statement that indicated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conley wrote that Trump “ had received ” the cocktail on Friday .
That leaves open the possibility that he got it earlier .
A related key question : When did the White House reach out to Regeneron to get a dose ?
It would have required special permission and delivery from Regeneron , as well as clearance from the Food and Drug Administration .
There are of course many important questions about Trump ’ s medical condition that remain unanswered .
For instance , Conley unsubtly dodged questions on Monday afternoon about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of lung problems .
We actually know very little , factually , about his current condition .
But the unanswered questions regarding his past conduct have something important in common : They address whether Trump considered the moral as well as personal consequences of his actions .
And although most of us know the answer to that already – it ’ s always the same answer – members of Trump ’ s team are fighting to obscure these specific facts presumably because they would depict Trump ’ s astonishing lack of personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So when the uncoverup happens , it could be brutal .

Amid all the essential questions that the White House refuses to answer about Donald Trump and Covid-19, journalists should pay particular attention to the ones it is refusing to answer most aggressively.
Possibly chief among those is: When was Trump’s last negative test? Reporters have repeatedly asked, and the Trump team steadfastly refuses to say, even though there ought to be nothing remotely controversial about it.
“I don’t want to go backwards,” was the latest smiling brush-off, this one from Trump doctor Sean Conley on Monday afternoon. “Everyone wants that,” he chuckled after he was asked again, and again refused to say.
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, who has since tested positive herself, was asked on Sunday if Trump had been tested before he went to the debate on Tuesday. McEnany bristled: “Yeah, I’m not going to give you a detailed readout with timestamps every time the president’s tested.”
Trump's doctors and aides won't say when his last negative test was done, so it seems fair to assume that the answer is embarrassing. He was required to be tested before last Tuesday's debate — if he actually was tested, wouldn't they just say so? — Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) October 5, 2020
What this strongly suggests, of course, is that Trump’s last negative test was not recent and, in particular, that he either wasn’t tested — or even tested positive – before Tuesday night’s debate.
WH refusal to give date of Trump’s last negative test indicates 1 of 2 things: 1. they’ve been lying about the frequency of his testing, including whether he was tested before debating Biden 2. he tested positive earlier than they’ve acknowledged, which was 2 days after debate — John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) October 5, 2020
That positive-test-result scenario isn’t inconceivable if you consider that the White House seems to consider results from its highly problematic rapid-response tests dispositive only when they are negative.
When the White House gets negatives on this test, they treat it as gospel. When they get positives, they question whether it's a false positive. https://t.co/S5Gt5hruRx — Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) October 5, 2020
We need to find out when Trump’s last negative test was. We need to find out how often Trump was tested. And of course we need to find out if he had a positive test before the ones on Thursday.
According to the current White House timeline, Trump tested positive on a rapid-response test Thursday evening – then basically lied to Fox News’s Sean Hannity by saying he didn’t have results yet – before it was “confirmed” with a more reliable test later that night, making it official.
But did he test positive on a rapid-response test before that? Or – another possibility — did he stop taking regular tests precisely because he had reason to believe he was infected?
As Reuters reporter Jeff Mason told Democracy Now on Monday: “The one thing they have been saying repeatedly throughout the last several weeks and months of this pandemic is that he is tested very regularly. I think many people assume that that would mean that he is tested on a daily basis, which would have included that Tuesday of that debate.”
Everybody besides Trump and his entourage was tested independently, but Trump arrived too late. Debate moderator and Fox News host Chris Wallace said that Trump was on the “honor system”.
If Trump can be shown to have known or suspected that he was infected on Tuesday — or earlier — then the world will know he chose to endanger Biden and everyone else at the debate rather than do the responsible thing and bow out.
And as we can never forget, Trump was even more irritable and sweaty than usual that night. Similarly, on Wednesday, Trump traveled to Minnesota for a rally but inexplicably cut it short.
Of course, Trump putting his own interests ahead of everyone else’s would hardly be out of character. It’s already public knowledge that he went to a fundraiser in New Jersey on Thursday after knowing – at the very least! — that he had been exposed to Covid via his adviser Hope Hicks.
According to rules that most of the rest of us follow, he should have quarantined right then and there – at the very latest.
Why block contact tracing?
Another hugely important topic that Trump’s team has been cagey about is contact tracing. Assuming that the Sept. 26 Rose Garden party for Amy Coney Barrett was a super-spreader event, which it certainly appears to have been, you’d think they’d want to find out what happened and try to stop the spread going forward.
But, oddly, they don’t.
In fact, they seem to be preventing it.
This despite the fact that, as Apoorva Mandavilli and Tracey Tully wrote in the New York Times on Monday:
Any of the closely packed guests and staff members at the Rose Garden ceremony could have gone on to transmit the virus to many others, so the White House’s decision not to investigate the cluster of infections, and pinpoint the source, has potentially devastating consequences for hundreds of people, several experts warned.
The obvious question then is: What are they hiding?
It’s an enormous outbreak, so everything about it is embarrassing, but the brazenness of the response suggest they are worried about something specific coming out about how the super-spreader was allowed into the festivities.
And when you think about, the most likely reasons are either that the White House’s testing system coughed up a critical false negative — or that someone who should have been tested wasn’t.
As with most other White House visitors allowed in proximity to the president, attendees were tested using the Abbott Laboratories ID Now rapid test. But as Sarah Toy and Daniela Hernandez reported for the Wall Street Journal on Sunday: “Some studies have shown that the Abbott Now ID test, which can produce a result in minutes, has around a 91% sensitivity—meaning 9% of tests can produce false negatives.”
They quoted Ashish Jha, dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health, as saying: “A metal detector that misses 10% of weapons—you’d never, ever say that’s our only layer of protection for the president.”
So that’s possibility No. 1: That the White House’s vaunted protection mechanism against outsiders carrying the virus is ineffective — and did not remotely justify the violations of mask-wearing and social-distancing rules that have been amply chronicled at the event.
But possibility No. 2 is that the super-spreading was an inside job – that White House staffers attending the event had either been poorly tested or not tested at all.
Rachana Pradhan, Lauren Weber and Liz Szabo reported for Kaiser Health News on Friday that the White House has been using a new, different test – an antigen test, also from Abbott Laboratories — to screen its own staff:
The test, known as BinaxNOW, received an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration in August. It produces results in 15 minutes. Yet little is independently known about how effective it is. According to the company, the test is 97% accurate in detecting positives and 98.5% accurate in identifying those without disease. Abbott’s stated performance of its antigen test was based on examining people within seven days of COVID symptoms appearing.
So maybe that test failed spectacularly.
But it could also be that White House staff isn’t being tested as diligently as we thought. That would be consistent with the White House’s refusal to say when Trump himself last tested negative.
And it would be in character. Isn’t it likely, even, that Trump’s family and other favorites weren’t being tested very often at all? And that one of them brought the virus to the party?
That would be a secret worth fighting to protect.
The cocktail question
Another question the White House is energetically obfuscating: When exactly did Trump get his IV with the super-experimental Regeneron cocktail?
The cocktail is considered most likely to be effective before the infection really sets in, so it’s safe to assume he took it fairly soon after his medical team realized he was infected.
At the Saturday press conference, medical-team member Brian Garibaldi said Trump had received the cocktail 48 hour earlier — which would be Thursday morning.
In a memo ostensibly “correcting” that statement — as well as Conley’s own statement that indicated an initial diagnosis on Wednesday morning — Conley wrote that Trump “had received” the cocktail on Friday. That leaves open the possibility that he got it earlier.
A related key question: When did the White House reach out to Regeneron to get a dose? It would have required special permission and delivery from Regeneron, as well as clearance from the Food and Drug Administration.
The big picture
There are of course many important questions about Trump’s medical condition that remain unanswered. For instance, Conley unsubtly dodged questions on Monday afternoon about whether Trump had pneumonia or any other kind of lung problems. We actually know very little, factually, about his current condition.
But the unanswered questions regarding his past conduct have something important in common: They address whether Trump considered the moral as well as personal consequences of his actions.
And although most of us know the answer to that already – it’s always the same answer – members of Trump’s team are fighting to obscure these specific facts presumably because they would depict Trump’s astonishing lack of personal responsibility with even more resonance than usual.
So when the uncoverup happens, it could be brutal.


presswatchers--2020-10-07--The first thing you need to know about the debate is that Pence shouldn’t even be there

Mike Pence should be in isolation — not on a stage in Salt Lake City where he could well be spreading a deadly virus to everyone around him .
His very presence is an affront to public health guidance the rest of the country is supposed to be following .
The American people should listen to his words only in this essential context : On that stage , he will be the embodiment of the profound personal irresponsibility expressed by Donald Trump and his loyalists ; behavior like his is precisely what ’ s going to kill tens of thousands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This context couldn ’ t be clearer or more dire , but it is largely escaping our elite political reporters , who refuse to break out of the traditional strictures of campaign coverage .
Those strictures forbid journalists from taking sides in argument , and require both sides to be presented as equally valid .
That ’ s why you had a Washington Post story up for much of the day Wednesday headlined “ Pence , Harris teams at odds over plexiglass at debate ” — a textbook case of false equivalence .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times treated Pence ’ s refusal to accept safety measures as just so much normal back-and-forth , writing : “ The complaint from Mr. Pence ’ s staff — which was quickly brushed aside by Ms. Harris ’ s team — was another salvo in the fraught negotiations over the debate scheduled for Wednesday in Salt Lake City.
” That ’ s why the Times ’ “ What to Watch for ” on debate day acknowledged that the “ debate has been shaped by the Covid-19 pandemic , ” but doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the debate is actually being held in person .
That ’ s why the Associated Press lookahead story only noted in passing that Pence “ has faced questions about whether he should be at the debate at all ” — quickly batting those questions aside by writing that Pence “ has repeatedly tested negative for the virus , and his staff and doctors insist he does not need to quarantine under Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.
” That , by the way , is an awfully credulous way to refer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the once-vaunted CDC once again being casually abused as a political tool by the White House .
I really hate quoting Bill Kristol , but he got it exactly right : Pence was literally front row at Ground Zero of the GOP outbreak : the Rose Garden event on Sept. 26 to celebrate the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court .
That means he was near a super-spreader ( who the White House is going to great pains not to let anyone identify ) for a prolonged period — not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , during and after .
He should have gone into isolation for at least 14 days after that .
Ryan Bort , writing for Rolling Stone , quoted a number of public health experts who explained that Pence shouldn ’ t be allowed out of his house yet , not to mention onto a public stage .
Those included Dr. Saskia Popescu , an epidemiologist at the University of Arizona : “ It would be grossly negligent to break quarantine to come out for [ the debate ] , especially after such significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ front of somebody for a very significant period of time , and that doesn ’ t even account for any indoor activities .
It would go against public health guidance and all of the recommendations that we ’ ve been giving the public.
” Bort also quoted Dr. Angela Rasmussen , a virologist at the Center for Infection and Immunity at Columbia University : “ It ’ s better to be 12 feet apart than seven feet apart , but at the same time it is completely possible to be infected by inhaling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respiratory droplets more than six feet away from you .
… A lot of it will depend on the size of the room and the ventilation , but really the best thing to do would be not to have an in-person debate at all.
” And consider these tweets from experts I follow on Twitter : The view that this debate shouldn ’ t be taking place is hardly a radical one .
It ’ s mainstream , common sense : People at the New York Times who are allowed to express opinions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proclaimed that “ under the current circumstances , it would be irresponsible for the show to go on as planned.
” Times TV critic James Poniewozik wrote that “ the Commission on Presidential Debates , as much as it may want to carry out its usual civic role , has enough evidence now that it can not put on a safe production , in this pandemic , with candidates in person.
” This , incidentally , is what the Pence people were fighting against — at least until they actually saw it : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The new version noted that top Pence staffer Katie Miller — who had mocked Harris for wanting to “ use a fortress around herself ” — found out hours later that her husband , the notorious Trump adviser Stephen Miller , had been infected .
This is madness .
Campaign reporters will lose themselves in the moment , churning out the obligatory he-said-she-said coverage .
But that means losing sight of the bigger picture .
Pence being there is a super-spreader event for irresponsibility and , eventually , death .

Mike Pence should be in isolation — not on a stage in Salt Lake City where he could well be spreading a deadly virus to everyone around him.
His very presence is an affront to public health guidance the rest of the country is supposed to be following.
The American people should listen to his words only in this essential context: On that stage, he will be the embodiment of the profound personal irresponsibility expressed by Donald Trump and his loyalists; behavior like his is precisely what’s going to kill tens of thousands of Americans who would otherwise live.
This context couldn’t be clearer or more dire, but it is largely escaping our elite political reporters, who refuse to break out of the traditional strictures of campaign coverage. Those strictures forbid journalists from taking sides in argument, and require both sides to be presented as equally valid.
That’s why you had a Washington Post story up for much of the day Wednesday headlined “Pence, Harris teams at odds over plexiglass at debate” — a textbook case of false equivalence.
This is a “but her emails!”-level headline. Margaret @Sulliview , perhaps a word with your colleagues? — James Fallows (@JamesFallows) October 6, 2020
That’s why the New York Times treated Pence’s refusal to accept safety measures as just so much normal back-and-forth, writing: “The complaint from Mr. Pence’s staff — which was quickly brushed aside by Ms. Harris’s team — was another salvo in the fraught negotiations over the debate scheduled for Wednesday in Salt Lake City.”
That’s why the Times’ “What to Watch for” on debate day acknowledged that the “debate has been shaped by the Covid-19 pandemic,” but doesn’t address how dangerous and ridiculous it is that the debate is actually being held in person.
That’s why the Associated Press lookahead story only noted in passing that Pence “has faced questions about whether he should be at the debate at all” — quickly batting those questions aside by writing that Pence “has repeatedly tested negative for the virus, and his staff and doctors insist he does not need to quarantine under Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.”
That, by the way, is an awfully credulous way to refer to the public spectacle on Tuesday of the once-vaunted CDC once again being casually abused as a political tool by the White House.
I really hate quoting Bill Kristol, but he got it exactly right:
The CDC Director was browbeaten by VP COS Marc Short into producing this embarrassing document. The CDC has no independent knowledge of "the movements of the Vice President" and doesn't know the onset of illness for individuals the VP was near. https://t.co/SGrisfpvBg — Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) October 6, 2020
Pence was literally front row at Ground Zero of the GOP outbreak: the Rose Garden event on Sept. 26 to celebrate the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. That means he was near a super-spreader (who the White House is going to great pains not to let anyone identify) for a prolonged period — not to mention many other possible exposures before, during and after. He should have gone into isolation for at least 14 days after that.
Ryan Bort, writing for Rolling Stone, quoted a number of public health experts who explained that Pence shouldn’t be allowed out of his house yet, not to mention onto a public stage.
Those included Dr. Saskia Popescu, an epidemiologist at the University of Arizona: “It would be grossly negligent to break quarantine to come out for [the debate], especially after such significant exposure. … He sat right in front of somebody for a very significant period of time, and that doesn’t even account for any indoor activities. It would go against public health guidance and all of the recommendations that we’ve been giving the public.”
Bort also quoted Dr. Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the Center for Infection and Immunity at Columbia University: “It’s better to be 12 feet apart than seven feet apart, but at the same time it is completely possible to be infected by inhaling the virus from somebody who is producing respiratory droplets more than six feet away from you. … A lot of it will depend on the size of the room and the ventilation, but really the best thing to do would be not to have an in-person debate at all.”
And consider these tweets from experts I follow on Twitter:
This debate should be taking place virtually since VP Pence was a close contact of the president and so he should be in quarantine for two wks. But if they’re going to have it, they should honor all protections Cleveland Clinic requiring 1/x https://t.co/bIEcBiPExL — Tom Inglesby (@T_Inglesby) October 6, 2020
Given how careless and disorganized the White House has been in managing #COVID19 among its staff, even refusing to allow CDC to conduct contact tracing (showing lack of transparency), I think any in-person event, including a debate, is just way too risky https://t.co/bt0HhvcGoW — Prof Peter Hotez MD PhD (@PeterHotez) October 6, 2020
.@VP Pence — you’re actually arguing over putting in more protections to prevent #covid19 spread during the debate? You shouldn’t even be there— you’re supposed to be in quarantine.https://t.co/kfe25vjjfX — Dr. Abraar Karan (@AbraarKaran) October 6, 2020
The view that this debate shouldn’t be taking place is hardly a radical one. It’s mainstream, common sense:
This is so true. The president+ vice president have shown they don’t care who they infect+how many. Keep them away from Biden, Harris, the moderators+the staff. The majority of Americans aren’t in the cult and won’t be misled by the taunts from the president’s enablers. Enough! https://t.co/J5vkPF8JzG — Jim Goldgeier (@JimGoldgeier) October 7, 2020
People at the New York Times who are allowed to express opinions certainly got it. A Times editorial proclaimed that “under the current circumstances, it would be irresponsible for the show to go on as planned.”
Times TV critic James Poniewozik wrote that “the Commission on Presidential Debates, as much as it may want to carry out its usual civic role, has enough evidence now that it cannot put on a safe production, in this pandemic, with candidates in person.”
This, incidentally, is what the Pence people were fighting against — at least until they actually saw it:
Good morning from inside the site of tonight’s Pence-Harris vice presidential debate. pic.twitter.com/MIKbhO4u8w — Geoff Bennett (@GeoffRBennett) October 7, 2020
The egregious Post story was eventually updated. The new version noted that top Pence staffer Katie Miller — who had mocked Harris for wanting to “use a fortress around herself” — found out hours later that her husband, the notorious Trump adviser Stephen Miller, had been infected.
This is madness. Campaign reporters will lose themselves in the moment, churning out the obligatory he-said-she-said coverage. But that means losing sight of the bigger picture.
Pence being there is a super-spreader event for irresponsibility and, eventually, death.


presswatchers--2020-10-09--Sometimes the stonewall is an answer

Sometimes the stonewall is an answer

Donald Trump recklessly and corruptly violated agreed-upon presidential debate commission rules by not getting tested for COVID-19 shortly before the Sept. 29 debate in Cleveland .
That ’ s the obvious conclusion from the White House ’ s relentless stonewalling about when he last tested negative .
And it ’ s time the news media said so .
The latest in an unending series of unbearably blatant dodges came Friday morning , when NBC News White House correspondent Hallie Jackson elicited maybe the smarmiest stonewall yet .
She asked six times !
I should be clear : Journalists should keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be really great if our elite White House reporters went back the “ sources ” they have so assiduously fluffed and granted anonymity to over the last three-plus years and demanded a little payback .
Like : “ Tell us the truth – now — while it still matters.
” But it ’ s entirely reasonable for our top news organizations to report at this point that the White House ’ s continued refusal to provide simple , basic information leads to the inescapable conclusion that Trump had not been tested recently and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence to the contrary — he certainly wasn ’ t tested before the debate .
That ’ s actually the most innocuous possibility .
There are considerably more heinous possibilities , including that he stopped getting tested weeks or months ago simply out of spite , or that he actually had symptoms before the debate , or that he tested positive on a rapid-response test long before the official announcement but the White House didn ’ t consider that definitive .
But his decision to attend the Cleveland debate without being tested – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough .
It speaks volumes about Trump ’ s level of personal responsibility .
Does he feel any at all ?
What he did was dangerous to everyone around him .
He could have killed Joe Biden .
This is not the sort of thing a normal , moral person would do — not to mention someone in a leadership role .
It also speaks to the willingness of Trump ’ s White House staff to mislead and lie .
“ The one thing they have been saying repeatedly throughout the last several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he is tested very regularly , ” Reuters reporter Jeff Mason told Democracy Now on Monday .
“ I think many people assume that that would mean that he is tested on a daily basis , which would have included that Tuesday of that debate.
” The White House also evidently lied to the debate commission and the Cleveland Clinic , which was supervising safety measures .
As Benjamin Siegel reported for ABC News , “ both campaigns certified to debate organizers that the candidates and everyone who traveled with them to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the debate.
” White House spokesperson Judd Deere also lied to reporters on Oct. 1 .
BuzzFeed reported that “ Deere said Friday that everyone who traveled on Air Force One to Tuesday ’ s debate was tested that day , but did not provide further details about the testing and did not answer a question about how that was communicated to the clinic.
” As debate moderator Chris Wallace explained after Trump ’ s announcement that he was infected , everyone at the debate other than the candidates and their entourages was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The candidates were on the “ honor system.
” Even as Trump was potentially spreading the virus onstage , he mocked Biden for his mask wearing – and most of his contingent in the audience , including his adult children and senior staff , violated commission rules by taking off their masks .
Given all the other outrageous things Trump has done in the 10 days since the debate – his joy ride outside Walter Reed with captive Secret Service agents , his gasping Mussolini-esque salute from the White House balcony , his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , his abrupt reversals on stimulus , his mad string of tweets , just for starters – is the fact that Trump went to the debate untested really that big a deal ?
I asked my Twitter followers and they seemed to think so .
And like I argued on Monday , it ’ s worth paying particular attention to the questions the White House is refusing to answer the hardest .
The No .
1 question they are refusing to answer , by far , is when he last tested negative .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hurt .
Maybe they ’ ve done focus groups , and found that it hurts him with undecideds – or maybe even with his base .
Maybe they realize how indefensible his conduct was , and how potent a symbol it is of his overall failure to contain the virus .

Donald Trump recklessly and corruptly violated agreed-upon presidential debate commission rules by not getting tested for COVID-19 shortly before the Sept. 29 debate in Cleveland.
That’s the obvious conclusion from the White House’s relentless stonewalling about when he last tested negative. And it’s time the news media said so.
The latest in an unending series of unbearably blatant dodges came Friday morning, when NBC News White House correspondent Hallie Jackson elicited maybe the smarmiest stonewall yet. She asked six times!
WATCH: @HallieJackson presses White House Deputy Press Sec. Brian Morgenstern repeatedly over the date of President Trump’s last negative Covid-19 test. pic.twitter.com/5nhGPnoCYE — MSNBC (@MSNBC) October 9, 2020
I should be clear: Journalists should keep digging. In fact, it would be great if our elite White House reporters went back to the “sources” they have so assiduously fluffed and granted anonymity to over the last three-plus years and demanded a little payback. Like: “Tell us the truth — now — while it still matters.”
But it’s entirely reasonable for our top news organizations to report at this point that the White House’s continued refusal to provide simple, basic information leads to the inescapable conclusion that Trump had not been tested recently and that -– in the absence of any evidence to the contrary — he certainly wasn’t tested before the debate.
That’s actually the most innocuous possibility.
There are considerably more heinous possibilities, including that he stopped getting tested weeks or months ago simply out of spite, or that he actually had symptoms before the debate, or that he tested positive on a rapid-response test long before the official announcement but the White House didn’t consider that definitive.
But his decision to attend the Cleveland debate without being tested, which is now incontrovertible, is heinous enough.
It speaks volumes about Trump’s level of personal responsibility.
Does he feel any at all? What he did was dangerous to everyone around him. He could have killed Joe Biden. This is not the sort of thing a normal, moral person would do — not to mention someone in a leadership role.
It also speaks to the willingness of Trump’s White House staff to mislead and lie. “The one thing they have been saying repeatedly throughout the last several weeks and months of this pandemic is that he is tested very regularly,” Reuters reporter Jeff Mason told Democracy Now on Monday. “I think many people assume that that would mean that he is tested on a daily basis, which would have included that Tuesday of that debate.”
The White House also evidently lied to the debate commission and the Cleveland Clinic, which was supervising safety measures. As Benjamin Siegel reported for ABC News, “both campaigns certified to debate organizers that the candidates and everyone who traveled with them to Cleveland tested negative within 72 hours of the debate.”
Siegel wrote:
Debate organizers required the Biden and Trump campaigns’ medical teams to test the candidates and their traveling parties within 72 hours of last Tuesday’s debate, and “certify” to the Cleveland Clinic that each person traveling tested negative within that window. “Each campaign complied with this requirement,” the clinic, which partnered with the Commission on Presidential Debates to stage the debate, said in a statement. Specifically, each campaign provided a list of names and the results of their test, clinic spokesperson Angie Kiska told ABC News.
White House spokesperson Judd Deere also lied to reporters on Oct. 1. BuzzFeed reported that “Deere said Friday that everyone who traveled on Air Force One to Tuesday’s debate was tested that day, but did not provide further details about the testing and did not answer a question about how that was communicated to the clinic.”
As debate moderator Chris Wallace explained after Trump’s announcement that he was infected, everyone at the debate other than the candidates and their entourages was physically tested by the Cleveland Clinic. The candidates were on the “honor system.”
Even as Trump was potentially spreading the virus onstage, he mocked Biden for his mask wearing — and most of Trump’s contingent in the audience, including his adult children and senior staff, violated commission rules by taking off their masks.
Does it matter?
Given all the other outrageous things Trump has done in the 10 days since the debate — his joyride outside Walter Reed with captive Secret Service agents, his gasping Mussolini-esque salute from the White House balcony, his preposterous claim that there is a cure, his abrupt reversals on a new stimulus bill and his mad string of tweets, just for starters — is the fact that Trump went to the debate untested really that big a deal?
I asked my Twitter followers and they seemed to think so.
May not be the most outrageous, but it’s the most representative of the other outrages. — Peter Birkenhead (@peterbirkenhead) October 9, 2020
Trump's MO never changes…ignore the rules or laws that are keeping Trump from something he wants. When people start to object, break more rules and laws while they're still dealing with the first one/ Wash, rinse repeat. — John Starbuck (@JCStarbuck3) October 9, 2020
As I argued on Monday, it’s worth paying particular attention to the questions the White House is refusing to answer the hardest. The No. 1 question they are refusing to answer, by far, is when the president last tested negative.
Maybe they think this one could really hurt.
Maybe they’ve done focus groups, and found that it hurts him with undecideds, or even with his base.
Maybe they realize how indefensible his conduct was, and how potent a symbol it is of his overall failure to contain the virus.
Maybe they’re right.