Liberty, Tyranny, and Public Health
How Conservative media lie about COVID-19 restrictions
Experts have long warned that the COVID-19 pandemic would worsen during the winter months. “Winter is coming,” said Catherine Smallwood of WHO Europe back in September. “As we approach the flu season and the winter months, there are additional factors that will [compound] and add even more to that level of risk.” And unfortunately, they were right: confirmed cases and deaths continue to rise and show no sign of slowing down.
Since the virus is resurgent in many areas of the United States, some states have begun to reimpose restrictions meant to slow the virus’ spread. Officials in California implemented mandatory stay-at-home orders for 80% of the population as hospitals in many counties near capacity. Governor Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania instituted several targeted closures of certain businesses as case levels in the state reach all-time highs. And President-elect Joe Biden has signaled that he would encourage further lockdowns in areas with out-of-control spread: “I would shut it down” if experts recommended it, he said back in April.
As the COVID-19 pandemic has shown, some policies that benefit the public good are inherently subversive to personal convenience. Lockdowns, though restrictive, are sometimes necessary. Social distancing and mask wearing, while tiresome, are the most effective ways individuals can keep others safe.
But Conservative media have waged war on expertise, decrying experts and encouraging their audience to ignore CDC guidance. Fox’s Laura Ingraham explicitly told her audience during a July broadcast to take advice from scientists “with a grain of salt” around the same time Tucker Carlson pretended there was no evidence that mask-wearing works. Fringe websites like the Gateway Pundit have gone even farther, accusing public health experts of conspiring to exaggerate the severity of the pandemic.
I’ve written before that lying about an ongoing pandemic, one that has claimed the lives of over 300,000 Americans , is dangerous and immoral. That much is still true. But as the pandemic enters a novel stage, the rhetorical tools that Conservative media have employed to spread misinformation about COVID-19 have changed. The underlying theme — that basic measures taken in the interest of public health are tyrannical and ineffective — remains, but the specific mechanisms have grown more subtle. Let’s take a look at the two most common tricks they’ve used to delegitimize the effectiveness of anti-COVID-19 policies in recent weeks.
1. Highlight Hypocrisy
It’s a simple tactic, really, and one that I suspect works best on those already inclined to agree with the argument being advanced.
Let’s suppose that there’s a governor; I’ll call them Gavin Oldsom for this example. Governor Oldsom serves a large state with broad geographic heterogeneity: some localities are large and urban and others small and rural. As a result, COVID-19 spreads at vastly different rates in different areas. And in the more densely-populated regions, the virus spreads quickly and hospitals have become overwhelmed. What should Governor Oldsom do?
Experts might suggest a targeted lockdown, one that severely restricts travel but only applies to those areas in which hospitals are operating at or above capacity. Fair enough, you might say. Sure, lockdowns have a number of negative externalities, but they will help these struggling cities control the virus until hospitals have some room to breathe (no pun intended).
Now let’s say that Governor Oldsom later attends a birthday party at a restaurant, with families from multiple different households, essentially biting his thumb at the various regulations he himself put in place. What are we to make of this?
Here’s where I pull the rug out from under you: this actually happened. The ‘Gavin Oldsom’ I referred to is actually California Governor Gavin Newsom (get it?), who, despite implementing temporary lockdowns in parts of the state, recently attended an outdoor birthday party, commingling with others in a way he explicitly advises Californians against.
Should Newsom have done this? Of course not. While even he admitted as much afterward, that does not change the fact that someone imposing severe restrictions on his citizens acted as though they were above the law. And they did so in a way that was dangerous and irresponsible.
Media outlets absolutely should report on this. What they should not do, however, is imply that politicians’ hypocrisy is evidence that the restrictions are made in bad faith. In other words, Gavin Newsom’s hypocrisy is not evidence that lockdowns don’t work or that he imposed them to be controlling. All it tells us is that Gavin Newsom is a bit of a hypocrite. No conclusions about lockdowns can be drawn from Newson’s actions alone.
But Conservative outlets, in reporting this story, highlight Newsom’s actions and seemingly imply this very argument.
Let’s compare two articles about Newsom’s conduct — one from the center-left publication Newsweek and one from the highly Conservative Breitbart, an outlet that is, for some reason, still allowed to call itself news.
The first thing to note is that both articles are critical of Newsom’s conduct. The one in Newsweek draws attention to the fact that attending the party constituted a violation of his state’s COVID-19 policies and that the governor himself called it a “bad mistake.” The piece also included lengthy quotations from Newsom’s apology statement and provided in-depth information about California’s COVID-19 guidelines.
Whereas the Newsweek article is fair but critical, focusing on what Newsom did and how it relates to his policies, Breitbart focuses instead on criticism of Newsom’s character. Looking at the headlines of the respective pieces is illuminating and better demonstrates what I mean [emphasis added]:
- “California Gov. Gavin Newsom Says Attending Birthday Dinner ‘Bad Mistake,’ Must Practice What He Preaches” (Newsweek)
- “Riverside County Sheriff Calls Gov. Newsom Hypocrite, Bully over ‘Dictatorial’ Enforcement of Stay-at-Home Orders” (Breitbart)
David Ng, the author of the Breitbart article, makes no mention of the lockdown policies or Newsom’s apology for violating them. The rest of the article draws attention to the fact that local police have vowed not to enforce the lockdown policies. Lacking information, it’s hard to conclude that the aim of the piece is to inform Californians (or the nation at large) about COVID-19.
Instead, the sole point in writing it seems to be to level a brutal ad hominem at Newsom, implying that his policies should not be taken seriously because they were implemented in bad faith by a tyrannical, power-hungry leader.
Though perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising. After all, Breitbart hosts its COVID-19 articles under the heading “COVID-1984.”
2. Emphasize the negative effects while ignoring the positive effects
Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the study of public policy will know that all governmental interventions, however well-intentioned, have consequences. No policy is perfect, and each will have some drawbacks. Policy scholars, political scientists, and economists don’t hide this. On the contrary, acknowledging unintended consequences is an open part of any discussion about a proposed policy.
But of course, Conservative media are not the good-faith actors that academics often are. They have a political and financial incentive to only tell part of the story. And an easy way to do this is to cover the negative impacts of a policy while ignoring the benefits.
Lockdowns in response to rapid spread of the Coronavirus provide the clearest example. I have yet to find a Conservative outlet that reported on the study in Nature that found lockdowns to be critical in preventing millions of deaths from COVID-19.
What they do report on, though, are the consequences of lockdowns. Among my favorite examples of such pieces are:
- Dr. Anthony Fauci recently said that Americans need to avoid traveling if possible this holiday season, adding that he and his wife would not be seeing their children for Christmas. Fox News misleadingly reported this statement as Fauci “tell[ing] Americans not to see their kids for Christmas.”
- Breitbart, in a string of anti-lockdown articles, decried lockdowns for reducing retail sales, driving restaurants out of business, and increasing homelessness in New York City. It may go without saying at this point, but the data in each are greatly misrepresented by the authors.
- One America News amplified Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump’s tweets in which they smeared lockdowns as “economy destroying power-grab[s]” that are “not grounded in science.” This is perhaps the least subtle example of an outlet trying to imply that lockdowns are tools for consolidating power.
The list goes on and on.
To be clear, I am not denying the drawbacks of lockdowns. I’ve said it before and I will say it again: lockdowns are not always appropriate and must be implemented strategically. Nevertheless, the implication of this coverage is that lockdowns do more harm than good and fail to protect against the spread of COVID-19. It allows Conservative outlets to portray Democratic governors as Orwellian, power-hungry monsters who don’t care about public health and instead pursue power for its own sake.
More importantly, though, it discredits basic protections against COVID-19 and grants the readership permission to ignore guidelines meant to protect themselves and others. The cumulative effect (and arguably the original purpose) of this coverage is the creation of a narrative in which COVID-19 cannot be avoided by mask-wearing or targeted lockdowns, by social distancing or limited travel. Republicans are already less likely to abide by CDC guidelines — and reporting of this type only further encourages such irresponsible behavior.
I don’t have any stirring call-to-action here. Obviously, an obscure blogger like myself has no agenda-setting power over Conservative media. But there is value in understanding how these outlets undermine truth. And at a time when COVID-19 is as deadly as ever, there is perhaps even greater value in an informed public knowing exactly what they’re up against.
