Why Did Trump Attack Peter Alexander at the March 20, 2020 Coronavirus Press Conference?

Donald Trump, White House photo

We heard many points made at yesterday’s press conference with President Donald Trump’s Coronavirus Task Force, but most people are talking about the president’s belligerent response to an innocent question by NBC reporter Peter Alexander. What happened is that Trump set a trap for Alexander, but Alexander didn't fall into the trap and Trump ended up trapping himself instead.

In context, the exchange went like this:

“Q    I’ll just follow up.  Nearly 200 dead.  What do you say to Americans who are scared, though?  I guess, nearly 200 dead; 14,000 who are sick; millions, as you witness, who are scared right now.  What do you say to Americans who are watching you right now who are scared?

“THE PRESIDENT:  I say that you’re a terrible reporter.  That’s what I say. Go ahead.

“Q    Mr. President, the units that were just declared —

“THE PRESIDENT:  I think it’s a very nasty question, and I think it’s a very bad signal that you’re putting out to the American people.  The American people are looking for answers and they’re looking for hope.  And you’re doing sensationalism, and the same with NBC and “Con-cast.”  I don’t call it — I don’t call it “Comcast,” I call it “Con-cast.”

To all appearances, Alexander asked a softball question. During a crisis – which Trump himself declared to be an emergency – most presidents would leap for joy at the chance to reassure the public and assert national leadership. But not Trump! Instead, Trump lashed out. Trump didn't even seem to notice that his canned response talked about hope, which is exactly what Alexander asked about.

What was the result? The predictable people make predictable responses. The mainstream press defended Alexander. An article in Vanity Fair said that the exchange proved that Trump was a “sociopath.” In contrast, conservative pundit Brit Hume agreed with Trump that Alexander asked an unfair question. Hume tweeted that it was a “gotcha question” of the kind that “hack WH reporters have been asking for decades.” Even Hume, however, agreed that Trump could have taken advantage of the opportunity to reassure viewers.

So, what’s going on here? Trump's nasty response was actually an interesting, albeit unsuccessful, rhetorical-persuasive tactic. Here's how it worked:

1. Trump and the press have been slicing at one another for years. Trump takes this personally, and he was, contrary to appearances, not at all interested in the content of Alexander’s question. He was only interested in defending himself from the press. So, ...

2. ... Given Trump’s personality and track record, my best guess – and it’s only a guess – is that Trump planned the exchange to begin with! He seemed to do something similar in 2018 when he called on CNN's Jim Acosta to ask a question. Acosta asked a tough question and Trump lashed out at him. Trump even suspended Acosta's press pass. That was an obvious set up. Now, NBC News reporters have not been among Trump's biggest boosters, and he may well have called on Alexander for the sole purpose of insulting him. Trump was probably going to attack Alexander no matter what Alexander asked. He no doubt expected Alexander to ask a tough question, but Alexander didn’t. He asked an easy question, so Trump’s tactic backfired. Trump's tactic failed because he had no way to anticipate that Alexander would ask an innocent question, and he wasn't thinking fast enough to switch tactics on the spur of the moment.

3. In a larger context, the Republican Party and the press haven’t gotten along well in recent years. Sorry to sound like a fire-breathing liberal, but the Republican Party disconnected itself from factual reporting a long time ago. That’s why Republicans and Fox News get along so well. The basic Republican policies, which revolve around tax cuts for super-rich people, are not popular and there is no evidence that they’re wise. Since these policies do not accord with the facts, Republican politicians have two obvious choices: they can admit that their policies are bad, or they can deny the very existence of facts. The latter tactic, absurd though it sounds, has served them well. Never forget that Trump staffer Kellyanne Conway introduced the concept of “alternative facts” to the news world a few years ago. So, Trump wasn't just attacking Alexander: he was attacking the concept of news reporting. His tactic would have worked in the eyes of Fox News addicts everywhere if Alexander had followed the script and asked a nasty question.

Many years ago, Daniel J. Boorstin wrote about what he called the pseudo-event. A pseudo-event is something that occurs only so it can be reported in the news. Donald Trump's rallies are classic examples.

Maybe we could say that Trump's exchange with Alexander was a pseudo-mini event. Trump picked a fight for the sole purpose of fighting. He wanted to look tough. He wanted to stand up to the press. The press was making him look bad by asking questions about the coronavirus that Trump had no good answers for. It was, Trump seemed to think, time to take vengeance. It was too bad for Trump that Alexander didn't know his lines.

Never attribute a rhetorical tactic to stupidity if you can instead attribute it to malice.