If Bob Woodward is correct in his new book Rage, President Trump lied to the American public
regarding the threat of the coronavirus. He did that to avert panic. Similarly, for months Woodward apparently knew Trump was lying but said nothing. Both got it wrong ethically. No matter how noble or well-meaning, it is never appropriate for government officials to lie in the name of the public interest. Similarly, it is ethically wrong for journalists to withhold from the public information for a story when revealing it could have saved lives.
Lying is considered wrong, even children know this. Often withholding information is as bad as lying. Yet culturally some think lies to children, the ill, or vulnerable are deemed okay to protect them. At one time it was acceptable to lie to dying patients so as not discourage them, but that is no longer a permissible medical ethics practice. Despite a general cultural admonition to tell the truth, we create many exceptions to that rule.
Do these exceptions extend to public officials and journalists? Should elected officials be allowed to lie to the public during the Covid-19 pandemic to shield them from bad news, prevent panic, or encourage them and make them feel better?
“You can't handle the truth” is the most famous line from the 1992 movie A Few Good Men. Lying for the public good is premised upon this notion. There are several problems with arguing that lying to the public is ethically permissible, even for altruistic reasons.
One, the correctness of lying is justified is left up to public officials and not the people to decide. How do we know they are making the right decisions about what the public can bear if the latter lacks the information to make a judgement on what is right or wrong?
Two, how do we know the public official is lying or withholding information for the right reasons or motives? It is easy for an official to say that my motives are well-meaning, but is that always the case? Might not the basis for withholding information be to hide mistakes, avoid accountability, or simply further one’s own electoral or political interests? This is possibly what Trump did. Letting public officials decide on the rectitude of their lies is a form of conflict of interest, letting them be the final judge of whether they are acting in the public good or abusing their position.
Three, once a public official has lied, they have lost all of their credibility. In the future, how can we trust them? In part the erosion of public confidence and legitimacy of government stems from questionable veracity.
Four, lies might put more people at risk than telling the truth. People act in reliance on information they receive from public officials. Giving false or misleading information may force people into making choices or assessing situations that put them at more risk than would telling the truth.
Five, in a free society the public is entitled to the truth and adults need and deserve correct information to hold the government accountable and make the appropriate decisions. Lying for the public good treats adults like children, asserting they and not adults know what is in their own best interest. What Trump did was wrong–he lied to protect himself and used protecting the public as a pretext.
But what about Woodward? He did not lie but withheld critical information to produce a story and sell a book for personal profit. That is just as bad as what Trump did. Journalists are in the business of revealing not concealing information and Woodward violated that rule. Moreover, journalists do not have a right to withhold information that could save lives. Medical doctors, including psychiatrists, often have a mandatory duty to break patient confidentiality if they have information that could protect the public. Yes the First Amendment protects the press. But when a journalist such as Bob Woodward gathers critical information such as he did and refuses to disclose so that he can sell a book for profit that is not about freedom of the press but personal profit at the expense of the public. What he did in withholding information is as bad as what Trump did in lying.
But there is something more deeply wrong with Woodward’s Rage–it is a great journalist living on the afterburn. By that, the last few exposes Woodward has written on presidents have been devoid of insight and perspective. The 2018 book Fear, also on the Trump presidency, told us nothing we did not know about the Trump presidency then. The same is mostly true of Rage. It is just another what I call Trump porn book that is written to enrage audiences and make money. Reading excerpts from Rage I walk away from it thinking that had a different journalist written it it would not get this attention, especially if this were an unknown one. The book cuts corners, reports on facts, and fails to reveal things that raise questions about personal and journalistic ethics. This is a Washington, D.C. insider book that appeals to other insiders but fails to do much to advance anything except to enlarge the criticisms about the media.
I only found your blog because it was referenced in the Binghamton Alumni notice, and I was curious enough to read what you had to say.
ReplyDeletePoint One: "How do we know they are making the right decisions about what the public can bear if the latter lacks the information to make a judgement on what is right or wrong?" Because public officials don't speak in a vacuum. There are many other sources available to determine the truth. Perhaps if the subject were related to secret intelligence, such as with WMDs in Iraq, then this would be an issue.
Point Three: "once a public official has lied, they have lost all of their credibility". Oh please. It has been proven thousands of times that Trump lied, but it seems to have no impact on those who believe him and those who don't.
Point Five:"in a free society the public is entitled to the truth and adults need and deserve correct information to hold the government accountable and make the appropriate decisions". Again, it has been a long time since government spokespersons have been the main source of information. What is true is argued across all forms of modern communication. Misinformation comes from many places with many motives. It is up to the individual to glean information from appropriate sources, and determine the truth - and there's the rub. It takes work.
What is new from Woodward's book isn't that the President lied, but that it answers the question "does he even know what the truth is?". It would have made no difference if Woodward had gone public with this earlier, because Trump supporters pay no attention to these things.
My last comment is that it seems you only read excerpts from Rage, yet you're making sweeping judgments about it. True? I'm not saying I disagree with you, but do you think that's ethical?
Can't see your argument in this context, David. You do make a valid point --- should Woodward have raised an alarm earlier on. I don't know enough about journalistic ethics to say one way or another, although it is worth the debate. Three points:
ReplyDelete1. To whom should he have raised the alarm? The Justice Department or other Federal agency? He was talking with POTUS, who IS the Federal agency. There is no higher authority. Should he have raised it in the press with the public at large? As of the time of the interview? This again is a question of journalistic ethics best left to experts.
2. This debate about what Woodward owes the public as a writer is beside the point. Maybe he had an obligation to tell someone (?) about the President's confessions about downplaying coronavirus and publicly disclosing sensitive state secrets but it is a separate debate. Woodward will have to rise or fall with his own decisions. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the disclosures he has been awarded by POTUS himself.
3. The real debate here, in this context, is that the President of the United States of America for eight months (and continuing) has knowingly lied to about and covered up from, the American people the dangers of this disease, has consistently and actively encouraged the American people to let down their guard to this disease, with the result that Americans, whom he is sworn to protect, likely have died as a consequence of his indifference
Please don't let your concerns about Woodward, valid as they be, distract us from the real story here.
#1. Human Beings have been lying to themselves, to others, and to God for all of recorded history. (See Genesis 4:9) They will continue to do so till the Good News of the Kingdom arrives.
ReplyDelete#2. A precept of democracy and a fundamental principle of our Criminal Justice system is that “on average” people can tell truth from lies and facts from fiction. When people are deceived it isn’t because of their inability to tell truth from lies it is because they WANT to be deceived.
#3. I personally believe that President Trump lied about lying. If you go back and read the press articles, the statements by Speaker Polosi, Dr. Fauci, the WHO, the CDC, the Governors Walz & Cuomo, Mayor de Blasio, and the pundits in January and February of this year; never in a thousand years could Trump believe that Covid was a big deal and not say something. Who would have told him? The death count was in dozens and it was all old and sick people. I remember Covid being called the “Social Security” disease.
President Trump’s job was to “flatten the curve”, and he did it beautifully: not one Covid patient who needed a hospital bed died without one, not one Covid patient who needed an ICU died without one, and no Covid patient died for the lack of a ventilator. On the other hand the Democratic Governors, Walz and Cuomo, who are absolutely responsible for the regulation, licensing, inspection, and control of the Long Term Care Facilities and nursing homes killed thousands of the most vulnerable. Even today in Minnesota, LTCF deaths are over half the total deaths in the state while LTCF patients account for only 1% of the population. (accumulated total 72% of all deaths in MN are residents of LTCF) This is not just incompetence, this is criminal negligence.