During a Saturday news briefing, President Trump fielded a question about the coronavirus timeline. Like most questions relating to the pandemic, this one placed a premium on details, facts and honesty — three areas where the president has repeatedly failed the country. So when he was asked when he first learned that coronavirus was “going to be a problem,” he spouted full paragraphs of spin:
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, when I learned, I started doing the closings. So, you know, probably around that time. We didn’t learn much. I think you’re going to ask a little bit about China responsibility. I do think that — again, I have great respect for China. I like China. I think the people of China are incredible. I have a tremendous relationship with President Xi.I wish they could have told us earlier about what was going on inside. We didn’t know about it until it started coming out publicly, but I wish they could have told us earlier about it because we could have come up with a solution.Tony Fauci and all of the people — the talent that we have — would have loved to have had three or four months of additional time, if you knew what this was going to be happening. They didn’t have that time. They read about in the newspapers like everybody else. China was very secretive, okay? Very, very secretive. And that’s unfortunate.With that, I have great respect for that country. I have great respect for the leader of that country and like him. He’s a friend of mine. But I wish they were able to — I wish they would have told us earlier, Steve, that they were having a problem. Because they were having a big problem and they knew it, and I wish they could have given us an advanced warning. Because we could have done — we could have had a lot of things — as an example, some of the things that we’re talking about, where we order them as quickly as we can. If we had a two- or three-month difference in time, it would have been much better.Yeah, please.
Bolding added to highlight a suggestion from Trump that the United States could have gotten a heads-up of several months if only Chinese authorities had been more transparent. He doesn’t make this allegation directly, mind you, but rather uses elliptical and confusing Trumpspeak to lay it out.
Timelines indicate that China’s mishandling of information on the coronavirus lasted perhaps a few weeks.
Science magazine noticed the discrepancy. On Sunday evening, it published an interview by Jon Cohen with Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Fauci is the widely admired and much listened-to expert who has been in his position since 1984, advising six presidents along the way. He has taken on HIV/AIDS, Ebola, Zika and many other public health threats.
All of which is to say that he values factual information in these public health crises, and yet has to stand and listen as Trump sprinkles the daily coronavirus briefings with falsehoods and poorly premised optimism. The obvious misery of this setup drove some questions for Fauci:
Q: What about the travel restrictions? President Trump keeps saying that the travel ban for China, which began 2 February, had a big impact [on slowing the spread of the virus to the United States] and that he wishes China would have told us three to four months earlier and that they were “very secretive.” [China did not immediately reveal the discovery of a new coronavirus in late December, but by 10 January, Chinese researchers made the sequence of the virus public.] It just doesn't comport with facts.A: I know, but what do you want me to do? I mean, seriously Jon, let’s get real, what do you want me to do?Q: Most everyone thinks that you’re doing a remarkable job, but you're standing there as the representative of truth and facts but things are being said that aren't true and aren't factual.A: The way it happened is that after he made that statement [suggesting China could have revealed the discovery of a new coronavirus three to four months earlier], I told the appropriate people, it doesn’t comport, because two or three months earlier would have been September. The next time they sit down with him and talk about what he’s going to say, they will say, by the way, Mr. President, be careful about this and don’t say that. But I can’t jump in front of the microphone and push him down. OK, he said it. Let’s try and get it corrected for the next time.
It’s hard to imagine a more pointed argument for removing the briefings from their live-TV footing on the major cable-news networks. Fauci himself is conceding that there’s a problem with the information provided by the president without filter to millions of Americans tuning in for the latest on the crisis. Even in the best of circumstances, corrections are difficult to implement on television: The audience that heard the error in the first place will not be the same set of folks that hears the correction. That’s the way misinformation spreads.
Agents of misinformation don’t share space comfortably with career scientists. That dynamic may explain the entirely predictable circumstance that Trump has grown frustrated with Fauci, according to the New York Times.
After President Trump botched his prime-time coronavirus address — in which he touched off a panic over European travel and trade — the Erik Wemple Blog noted that he shouldn’t be allowed on live television. The daily coronavirus briefings are different animals, to be sure. During these sessions, Trump does share the lectern with others — Fauci and coronavirus task force expert Deborah Birx, for example — who know what they’re talking about. Live airing of these briefings, accordingly, disseminates helpful, solid information and misinformation in the same package.
A solution is at hand. Television networks quite routinely tape comments by public officials, and later incorporate snippets into an edited package for viewers. In the case of Trump’s coronavirus briefings, they can run his claim that he’s a “smart guy” and even his attack on NBC News correspondent Peter Alexander — “I’d say you’re a terrible reporter.” But not the consequential, false comments on the life-or-death topic at hand.
Follow Erik Wemple's opinionsFollow
It’s time to edit out the president.
Read more: