Dylan Scott:
I want to explain, as a matter of politics and of public health communications, the significance of the Trump White House restarting its COVID press briefings. The politics of it seem self-evident: His polling is foundering and clearly reflects the public's dissatisfaction with the COVID response. But I am still interested in how we would expect a president to balance those political considerations with public health – and whether these briefings can be used toward both ends or whether they will inevitably do harm to one or the other.
And that brings me to the public health communications side of it. I know many experts would argue the president has been the source of much disinformation about the pandemic. So I wonder, as much as people say we need more federal leadership in this crisis, whether it will actually be a net positive or a net negative from a public health communications perspective to have him speaking publicly and regularly about the pandemic again.
These are both fundamentally questions of crisis management and communications by a president, both in balancing political and public health considerations and in conveying accurate information to the public. I would love your take on how the Trump White House has performed on both of those fronts, and what the implications are of the press briefings restarting, to help me frame this story.
Peter M. Sandman:
I have a fantasy of President Trump suddenly and forcefully telling COVID-19 truths – not only the truths he and his supporters have been avoiding, but also truths his opponents have been avoiding.
What might he say?
- Almost everybody is going through hell of one kind or another right now.
- We all hope for an imminent pharmaceutical miracle, and the scientists are working night and day to achieve one. But we can’t count on it. The odds are high that things will still be horrible in November, and well into next year, and maybe well into the year after that – horrible both medically and economically.
- We have to stop trying to avoid “horrible” altogether and focus on ways to make things less horrible. That means finding a balance between infection control and other priorities – especially jobs and education.
- For example, wearing masks is a drag – but wearing masks doesn’t devastate our economy the way shutting down businesses does. Those are both ways of reducing the spread of the virus – one’s a drag and the other’s a disaster. So wear a mask so we can open more businesses!
- And if we have to shut down some kinds of businesses so we can open schools, let’s do that too. If it’s a choice between bars and schools, pick schools!
- And if we have to shut down everything for a short while – again! – so we can open up more carefully next time, then that’s what we have to do. Not everywhere, just in places where the virus is really out of control.
- All these decisions are best made locally. Even though the pandemic is global, local conditions vary widely. That was the mistake we made in March, locking down most of the country because the virus was out of control in New York City. We will not make that mistake again!
- But while the decisions should be local, there’s a lot that can best be done nationally. Here are the things I plan to do to ramp up the supply of tests, PPE, and other pandemic-fighting essentials….
It seems unlikely that President Trump would say all this. But if he could be persuaded to say some of it, that could help. Even yesterday’s tweet that masks are patriotic was a significant step.
Suppose President Trump said it all, or most of it. How would it affect the political situation?
Some of his base would be irritated. They might even feel betrayed, especially those who took a strong anti-mask stand. But he famously said they’d vote for him if he shot somebody, so presumably they’ll vote for him if he tells painful pandemic truths.
I suspect a lot of his base would be relieved. They’re almost as worried about COVID-19 as their anti-Trump neighbors, and they’d welcome the chance to stop feeling that supporting the president means they have to shrug off the pandemic.
Most undecideds would probably stay undecided. But their disapproval of how the president is handling the pandemic would decline. That might make a difference for some of them.
Nearly all Trump opponents would almost certainly remain opponents. They have plenty of other reasons to oppose him.
The key question, I think, isn’t whether any anti-Trump voters might change their vote. It’s whether anti-Trumpers would acknowledge that the president is finally saying good things about COVID-19. Would Rachel Maddow or the New York Times editorial page (or Vox) tell their mostly anti-Trump audiences that this time he did something right? Or would they find ways to trash what he said?
I suspect the latter. This close to an election, the president’s opponents do not wish for effective national COVID-19 leadership. In the unlikely event they got it, they would try to undermine it.
If I can’t convince myself that my hypothetical truth-telling Trump could unite the country behind pandemic truths, how could I possibly convince the president to tell those truths?
So, the short answer to your questions:
- I expect the president to say some things about COVID-19 that are true and some that are false; some that are useful and some that are harmful.
- I expect even the true and useful things he says to be muddled, imprecise, and easy to misinterpret.
- I expect the mainstream media to focus on what he said that was false and harmful, and to misinterpret the parts that are true and useful so they sound false and harmful too.
- I therefore expect the resumption of presidential COVID-19 briefings to change very little about the dismal way our country is managing the pandemic.
Dylan Scott:
Your points are well taken on what he should say, what he may actually say, and how those remarks are likely to be interpreted by the various audiences.
There was something implicit in your commentary that I wanted to draw out, or rather check whether I was reading into it accurately. There seems to be a presumption of “better late than never.” You didn’t comment much on how Trump has done in messaging thus far but I took your diagnoses to mean he had not been particularly effective (and I presume you would attribute some of that to his own mistakes and some of it to media institutional biases against him, though correct me if I am wrong).
I suppose I wonder: Is “better late than never” really true? Is there really anything he can say at this point that would negate the costs of the last four months? If he is changing his tone in response to political pressure rather than true conviction, what is the communications value in that?
I don’t say that to reinforce perceptions of my own bias and I am very receptive to the idea that yes, in fact, later would be better than never from a crisis and risk communications point of view. But I think for people who are skeptical of the president, that would be their response to any change in his tone. Of course, as you yourself already pointed out, these are people who are probably already decided on Trump. But I ask it anyway.
Peter M. Sandman:
I absolutely think better late than never. In 40+ years of consulting on controversies – including emerging infectious disease controversies – my clients almost always asked my advice only after putting their feet into their mouths.
One key to coming back after a screw-up is to acknowledge the screw-up and say you’re sorry. Trump isn’t good at that. Neither is CDC or WHO. Neither is New York Governor Cuomo or most other governors. Neither am I (as my wife would be the first to tell you). So it’s a good thing that it’s possible – albeit harder – to come back without much of an apology.
Also, change that’s a response to pressure is just as valuable – and way more common – than change that’s a result of a conversion experience on the Road to Damascus. That’s why we pressure people to change. The lesson here is for the people exerting the pressure: If you want pressure to work, for heaven’s sake don’t keep disparaging people who change under pressure!
Any social psychologist will tell you that attitude follows behavior far more often than the other way around. If you pressure me into changing my behavior, I’m going to feel uncomfortable admitting to myself that I knuckled under. I’d rather imagine that I changed my mind. So I look for evidence that my new position is wise – and pretty soon, post hoc, I really did change my mind.
Since you asked: Yes, I think Trump bungled COVID-19. We all did – public health experts and officials most of all. First they over-reassured the public and the decision-makers, failing to warn us aggressively enough to motivate preparedness. Then when viral spread exploded in New York City, they panicked and recommended (or at least didn’t oppose) locking down nearly the entire country, including places where there wasn’t a lot of virus and less extreme measures could have done the job. So now, when local lockdowns may really be needed in some places, our emotional and financial capacity to tolerate lockdown has been prematurely, wastefully exhausted. I could say more about the failures of public health professionals, but that’s a different story.
Copyright © 2020 by Peter M. Sandman
