Were COVID Briefings a Boldstroke or a Blunder? Only Time Will Tell

It has been damned if he doesn't and damned if he does for President Trump since day one. And the apparent end of his regular Covid-19 briefings offers another good case in point.

The briefings probably were necessary in order to reassure a rattled nation. But they were also politically risky, given the President's unfortunate tendency toward logorrhea, combined with a gotcha media looking for reasons to make him look bad, which he routinely serves up on a platter. The risks were multiplied five-fold in an election year, when presidents typically become extremely risk-averse. Circumstances would have argued for very controlled and closely managed briefings, at which the President said little -- serving largely as a tone- and theme-setting MC -- leaving the Veep and assembled experts to take lead on the pitfall-prone complexities.

In terms of their overall impact, political and psychological, I think the briefings should be judged a success, despite the flaps they were almost certain to generate. His advisors probably would have preferred a much more controlled and cautious approach. The briefings could have been scheduled less regularly and more formally formatted, lowering the chance for gaffes. But Trump, in typical fashion, let it all hang out and made himself the star of every show. It's too soon to tell whether that was a bold stroke or a blunder. But the briefings are sure to loom large as a pivot point when histories of this campaign season are written. 

The briefings should have been, well, briefer, with far less spontaneity and give-and-take with the press. That would have been the conventional advice most communications pros would have given any conventional president under such circumstances. But Trump has without question been the most unconventional and unscripted President of the modern era, for good or ill. He's obviously oblivious to such guidance and won't or can't be managed, which one might count as a virtue or vice depending on your take on Trump.

Now that he's feeling burned and reportedly dialing back these events, appropriately in my view, the dominant media narrative will change. The "story" will become his alleged lack of engagement, transparency, compassion, courage, accountability, bitterness toward the press, whatever. He'll be caricatured by some (absurdly, in my view) as the bumbler who urged Americans to chug Lysol. The media got two or three good "gotchas" out of the deal, and Trump had a way to connect with Americans very directly, which may or may not have worked in his favor, despite a few missteps.

Now this interesting (and sometimes entertaining) experiment in spontaneous, freewheeling, shoot-from-the-lip presidential leadership must end, potentially to the detriment of everyday Americans, due to a supercharged media environment in which no quarter is given on either side. That's unfortunate, in my opinion. It's rare that a President and the White House press corps can let "it all hang out," so to speak. The immediacy of live events and lack of scripting gave viewers a fascinating opportunity to see the President and press at work, in the raw. 

Some days the President came off looking better than the press, from my perspective; some days I came away with the opposite impression. The lively and unfiltered (and sometimes petty) sparring left it for viewers to decide who was behaving appropriately. Such freewheeling interactions, on such a regular basis, are rare to see in these times. And we'll be unlikely to see them again, I'm betting, even if Trump wins a second term.

People often ask why today's politicians, particularly Presidents, are so carefully scripted and managed. Well, this is why today's politicians, particularly our Presidents, are so carefully scripted and managed.