Lots of folks here and elsewhere are criticizing Bob Woodward for not going public immediately with “President” Trump’s Feb. 7, 2020 interview statement that coronavirius is airborne, “deadly stuff.” They make a plausible case that doing so might have led Trump supporters to take the pandemic and public health more seriously, and thereby saved lives. And they slam Woodward for not prioritizing public health over book sales. I share that priority, of course. But I disagree with their critique.
What the critique misses, I think, is that Woodward couldn’t know in advance what else he might glean by preserving his relationship with and access to Trump. He was getting many revelations, and in fact continued to do so after Feb. 7. On Feb. 8, he could plausibly anticipate, for example, getting scoops as to Trump’s relationships with foreign leaders, subsequent exposure of which might help avert North Korean or Russian aggression. So the decision whether to publish immediately was not unlike that faced by law enforcement authorities whose informant tips off a planned violent crime. If stopping that crime will blow the informant’s cover, it becomes a judgment call whether to do so.
Can Woodward’s judgment on this be second-guessed? Sure. But I’m not going to do so. Hindsight is easy. Woodward’s institutional responsibility was to publish in time for voters to hold Trump accountable, and he’s performing that responsibility.
And of course, Trump’s institutional responsibility was to vigorously use Presidential powers and leadership to protect the public health. But this post is about the guy on that call who we realistically expect would act responsibly.