As President Trump sat for the NBC town hall Thursday night, early in the event it became apparent he was walking into a snake pit. Moderator Savannah Guthrie was clearly on the offensive, firing loaded questions and enthusiastically challenging Trump at every turn. It was just weeks ago when Trump was excoriated for his interruptions of Joe Biden at their debate, but Guthrie has been hailed by that same press corps following the interrogation despite constantly refusing to allow Trump to finish answers.
In one revealing exchange the subject of mask mandates came up. Guthrie brought up a University of Washington study that declared if everyone is required to wear masks you could cut deaths in half. That this is a disputed study goes without saying, as absolutely nothing conclusive about masks and the safety result exists. Trump answered -- that is, he attempted to answer -- by referencing a noted medical professional who says otherwise.
As Trump began, "And then you have other people who disagree. Dr. Scott Atlas, great guy, from Stanford..." but then, as she did all night, Guthrie cut him off. "He’s not an infectious disease expert!"
This is following the recent course seen in the press in the past couple of weeks -- disputing the words from medical professionals. Consider something; for most of this year the press has insisted firmly that we, and the administration, must listen to trained medical professionals. Here was President Trump referencing the words of an esteemed doctor and Savannah Guthrie shot that out of the sky like a partisan skeet target. There is a perfect retort to this type of charge: Savannah, Dear -- you also are not an infectious disease expert.
This is a prime example of the press operating with a severe blindspot. They believe that their ability to compile reports and data is strictly reserved to their industry. As a result, they combat any words that defy their constructed narrative, even when that entails disregarding the words and analysis from a medical professional, while they are themselves not trained in said field. And frankly, if anyone is in a better position to analyze and interpret medical data it is a Stanford-trained medical professional, rather than a pant-suited network morning talk show hostess.
This is the trend seen in the press this month. When the president had been admitted for precautionary care following his Covid-positive test result, members of the press were in rabid form. Any report that defied their desire to cheer for Trump’s sickness was met with scorn -- particularly towards doctors. The physicians who tended to the president and declared him in good shape were called liars. When he was discharged after just a couple of days the medical team was called into question, and there were calls for Walter Reed Medical Center to be defunded.
Recently the WHO came forward to say lockdowns are a bad decision, and the press is now roundly ignoring the medical organization they had been touting most of this year. After spending the majority of this year insisting it is of utmost import that medical professionals be heeded the press has spent all of October delivering scorn at trained physicians. This can only be the result of an impending election impacting their position.
This would mean the press is actively contradicting another message they have been delivering all year. They are politicizing medical topics. It is a rather stark revelation to see the media complex turning 180 degrees out of phase of the very lectures they have been delivering all year.