Bob Woodward Has Let Himself Become Trump's Human Shield
By David Sirota, Jacobin
12 September 20
Weeks before the election, Donald Trump is now citing Bob Woodward's
self-serving decision to suppress the shocking coronavirus audiotape as
proof that he did nothing wrong.
Yesterday, we published an essay stating what should be the obvious: Bob
Woodward aided Donald Trump's crime against humanity by suppressing an
audiotape definitively proving Trump was misleading the country about the
danger of coronavirus.
If you are an MSNBC-watching liberal sitting there denying Woodward's aiding
and abetting - if you are still somehow humming the West Wing theme song to
yourself defending the honor of the country's most famous establishment
journalist - then you should take a look at Trump's Twitter feed this
morning. With 200,000 people dead, Trump is now using Woodward's decision to
suppress the tape as a means of defending himself in advance of the 2020
election. Put another way: Woodward has become Trump's human shield
protecting the president on the pandemic - the issue on which he's most
politically vulnerable.
The lesson here should be simple: It is very bad when journalists prioritize
their interests over the public interest.
Trump committed a crime against humanity that he should be held accountable
for, and the nation's most famous journalist knowingly helped him. If you
aren't mad about both things, then you have decided to lobotomize yourself
and become part of the problem.
In this case, Woodward knew the danger of Trump. In 2018, he published his
first book about Trump, where the president's staff and former advisers
described Trump as a paranoid and impulsive idiot they had to insulate and
control. In a paid speech with health insurance lobbyists last year,
Woodward declared: "When you look behind the scenes of what Trump is doing,
the pause that it gives you is 'Oh my god.' Every job you have to make a
risk assessment. And the risk assessment of Trump just couldn't be higher."
Yet knowing that risk assessment, Woodward nonetheless prioritized his
interest in selling more books and in maintaining White House access above
the journalist's obligation to publish information both proving Trump was
lying, and warning the public about a dangerous situation at the very moment
the public was in the dark.
Remember - the tape of Trump admitting coronavirus was deadly and airborne
was recorded in early February when there was very little public awareness
in the United States of just how lethal the disease is. In fact, two days
before Trump made his comments to Woodward, the Washington Post published a
story about lawmakers on Capitol Hill pushing the White House to take the
pandemic more seriously.
You can easily imagine a Bob Woodward bombshell story in the same Washington
Post two days later revealing that contrary to his public statements, the
president acknowledged that the situation is dire. You can then imagine that
such a revelation might embolden the Democratic lawmakers demanding more
aggressive action, and that might have led to tens of thousands fewer
casualties. And by Woodward's own account, he was free to publish such a
story - he didn't have some pre-arranged agreement with Trump to hold
publication.
But the story never came and 200,000 people then died because. future book
sales.
"Bob Woodward sitting on information about presidential lies until he has a
book to promote is. well it's the difference between being a hungry reporter
in 1973 and a palace courtier in 2020," writes the American Prospect's David
Dayen. "Many people were going to die from minimizing the extent of the
pandemic and not acting on knowledge of its impact. An author with as big a
financial cushion as Woodward would recognize that and act in the interest
of humanity rather than his first printing."
Of course, I've seen people say "well, even if Woodward had published a
story, it wouldn't have made a difference." Maybe that's true, maybe it
isn't. Nobody can know. But that distracts from the much more elemental
point here: The journalist's job is to contemporaneously report vital
information so that the public is informed. That's why a free press is so
critical to a democracy - it is supposed to provide a check on the
government.
Centuries after that most basic tenet of republican democracy was enshrined
in the constitution, the most famous member of that free press used his
power not to inform the public, but to help a president deceive the public,
to the point where the president is this morning citing the deception as
proof of his innocence.
Anyone defending this behavior is not only an apologist for 200,000
coronavirus deaths, they are complicit in the ongoing downfall of our
democracy.
