The Fawning Media Attention Provided to Anthony Fauci Brings to Mind Daniel Boorstin's Brilliant Book "The Image"

In "How the Media Fame Machine Created 'Anthony Fauci,'" Joseph C. Sternberg describes how Fauci's diary from during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic reveals "a scandalous divergence between what Dr. Fauci thought in private about the origins of the virus and what he told the public--and continues to insist in public today."

Sternberg notes another "public-vs.-private distinction": in public, "Dr. Fauci presented himself as a technocratic voice of reason in contrast to a bumbling, out-of-his-depth politician. It remains part of Dr. Fauci's appeal on the political left to this day." However, "the private Dr. Fauci had a different attitude. The overall tone toward Mr. Trump in the early days of the pandemic can best be described as starstruck."

Sternberg observes, "Dr. Fauci gloats to himself about his working relationship with Mr. Trump until late in the spring." Fauci's March 31, 2020 diary entry breathlessly states, "Trump continues to become more and more enamored of me." In April 2020, Fauci's tone shifts, and Sternberg comments, "A rupture between the two may have been inevitable, given that they both demonstrate insufferable self-regard. But the Fauci diaries point to another factor: the media. Much has been made of Dr. Fauci's obsession with his own press clippings. Did this change his approach to the pandemic and to his boss, the president?"

Fauci's April 15, 2020 diary entry proudly states, "Multiple editorials (print news, Washington Post, etc.) and opinion pieces (Newsweek) written about me. Cannot keep up or even read all of them. Country needs someone to look up to in the face of Trump presidency. Interesting psychodynamics."

Sternberg concludes, "Dr. Fauci was predisposed to revel in media attention. Now he knew what he needed to do to get more of it. By amping up his antagonism to the president, the TV bookings continued and he found himself in position to befriend prominent media personalities and be courted by literary agents eager to represent a future memoir...A more reflective press corps might ask whether they merely reported the Fauci news, or created it." 

In The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America," Daniel J. Boorstin describes "our arts of self-deception, how we hide reality from ourselves. One need not be a doctor to know he is sick, nor a shoemaker to feel the shoe pinch. I do not know what 'reality' really is. But somehow I do know an illusion when I see one." Boorstin asserts that the original primary role for media outlets was to report news--meaning events that have actually happened--but that with the advent of round-the-clock coverage the emphasis for media members shifted dramatically: "If he cannot find a story, then he must make one--by the questions he asks of public figures, by the surprising human interest he unfolds from some commonplace event, or by 'the news behind the news.'" Boorstin explains, "Demanding more than the world can give us, we require that something be fabricated to make up for the world's deficiency." Boorstin terms such fabrications "pseudo-events," a neologism based on the Greek word "pseudo," which means false.  

During the COVID-19 pandemic, I criticized the media's agenda-driven coverage: 

Reporters are supposed to do research and ask questions designed to discover facts, and then report those facts. A reporter's job is not to persuade, but to inform. A commentator's job is to utilize facts to persuade the audience that a given policy or viewpoint is more logical than the opposing policy or viewpoint.

It is unfortunate that far too many reporters and commentators either do not understand the above job descriptions and/or refuse to do their jobs appropriately...

Reporters would be well advised to cultivate humility in general, and also to cultivate humility specifically regarding the many specialized fields of inquiry for which they have little to no training or expertise. After Dr. Robert Goddard wrote that it would be possible to launch a rocket that could travel to the moon, The New York Times sneered in 1920 that Dr. Goddard failed to understand "the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools." A mere 49 years later, the newspaper published a retraction: "Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th century, and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error."

False media reporting about scientific issues can have disastrous consequences. Outraged by the mocking media coverage of his research, Dr. Goddard spent much of his career avoiding the press. He just filed his patents and he did his rocket launches. While the mainstream American media scoffed at Dr. Goddard, others actually studied Dr. Goddard's patent filings; after a captured Nazi scientist was asked about the origins of the Nazis' deadly V-2 rockets, the scientist replied, "Why don't you ask your own Dr. Goddard? He knows better than any of us." 

It has become a popular mantra to say "Follow the science," but science is properly understood as a method of inquiry, not an infallible source for one indisputable truth; it has become evident that often when a media member says "Follow the science" the reader is meant to understand this to mean "Have faith in the higher truth I am bestowing upon you." Einstein's Theory of Relativity is perhaps the most successful scientific theory of all-time, but scientists still do experiments to test its limits, so the notion that there is one scientific truth about the COVID-19 pandemic would be laughable if that notion were not so potentially threatening not only to our lives but also to the spirit of scientific inquiry.

When any media outlet tries to convince you that there is just one absolute scientific truth about a given issue--particularly if that issue is highly politicized--remember how the media treated Dr. Goddard. We would all be better off if people who do not know what they are talking about kept their minds open and their mouths shut.

In 2023, I looked back at the COVID-19 pandemic and discussed what could be learned by Following the Science, Resisting the Propaganda:

The COVID-19 pandemic has provided fascinating case studies in science, propaganda, governmental overreach, and more...

...the hypocrisy of many media outlets is blatant and disgusting. If you buy the premise that the first 500,000 U.S. COVID-19 deaths are President Trump's fault, then you also have to buy the premise that the next 600,000 (and counting) U.S. COVID-19 deaths are President Biden's fault. Media outlets that just blame one President while absolving another President are not only shamelessly engaging in partisan propaganda, but they are failing to investigate the real culprit(s): it is undisputed that COVID-19 began in the Wuhan province of China, and it would be interesting to find out if it originated from a lab leak, from improper safety protocols in open markets, from gain of function research gone wrong, or from a deliberate release of a bio-weapon. It would also be interesting to find out what Fauci knew, when he knew it, and how much he profited financially by covering up our government's support of gain of function research.  

Unfortunately, President Biden's blanket pardon of Fauci followed by the spectacle of Fauci invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination over 100 times when being questioned by members of Congress make it unlikely that we will find out what Fauci knew, when he knew it, and how much he profited by his actions while over 1,000,000 Americans died on his watch during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The way that many media outlets portrayed Fauci is, as Sternberg suggests, an example of creating news instead of reporting it. Media outlets depicted Fauci as the face of a resistance movement to President Trump that they hoped to create and empower, as opposed to objectively reporting the known information about COVID-19's origins and about the most effective public policies to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic to protect our most vulnerable members of society (the elderly and the immunocompromised) while causing minimal disruptions to the lives of our children, to our economy, and to the overall functioning of our society. 

Fauci and his media sycophants failed to perform their duties morally--if not legally as well--and they owe an apology to those who suffered (and in many cases died) as a consequence of prioritizing the lionization of Fauci over determining which policies would provide the most benefit to the public with the least risk. Also, as a society we must demand a full investigation of what caused COVID-19 and the extent to which containment efforts failed (or could be improved)--and the results of that investigation must be made public not only to ensure that those who were negligent (or worse) are brought to justice but also to ensure that the next time a pandemic or large public health crisis occurs we can learn from the mistakes that were made in 2020.

Following the Science, Resisting the Propaganda

The COVID-19 pandemic has provided fascinating case studies in science, propaganda, governmental overreach, and more. I wrote about these issues at length during the height of the pandemic, and then focused my attention elsewhere, but these issues are worth revisiting:

1) Whether or not mask-wearing is effective in terms of preventing the spread of COVID-19, and whether or not the government should mandate mask-wearing both became contentious public policy issues. Agenda-driven people who supported mask-wearing haughtily and dismissively insisted that their opponents should "follow the science."

I agree that the scientific method should be followed. I strongly disagree with Anthony Fauci's arrogant contention "I represent science."  Dr. Fauci represents propaganda and his own self-interests, not science. The most recent and authoritative research indicates that wearing a mask in a public place "probably makes little or no difference" in terms of preventing the spread of COVID-19. I am not holding my breath waiting for apologies from my interlocutors in this space, Facebook, and elsewhere who mocked me for declining to join the Fauci cult and for refusing to accept every word out of the man's mouth as gospel; I have been following the science all along, and thus I left my interlocutors far behind me (literally and figuratively).

2) There is no credible scientific evidence that government imposed lockdowns had any meaningful positive effect against the spread of COVID-19, but there is plenty of evidence that those lockdowns had negative impacts that may reverberate for years, if not decades. 

The lockdowns had no scientific justification and were the result of horrific public policy decisions combined with executive branch overreach at the state and federal levels. I hope that we never face another pandemic, but if we do face another pandemic I hope that we are smart enough to not lock down significant segments of society for no reason.

3) I predicted that, before the end of the first year of Joe Biden's presidency, the public would be informed that the COVID-19 pandemic was over and that normal life could resume. That is exactly what happened and, other than some brief concern about a few COVID-19 variants, that is where we are now. Most media outlets frame the current situation as something for which President Biden deserves praise, and these outlets contrast the way that Biden supposedly followed the science with the way that President Trump supposedly did not follow the science--but the reality is that the main reason that life has mostly returned to normal is the Operation Warp Speed vaccination program initiated by President Trump's administration (with an assist from the development of natural immunity, as the strong likelihood is that most of us were exposed to COVID-19, did not develop serious symptoms, and now have bodies equipped to resist subsequent infection).

Also, it is fascinating to recall how during the Trump administration we received daily updates about "grim milestones" that had been surpassed in terms of COVID-19 death totals, and to note that such headlines disappeared after Biden became President, even though more U.S. citizens have died of COVID-19 during President Biden's administration than died of COVID-19 during President Trump's administration.

I want to make two points very clearly and emphatically:

1) Every COVID-19 death was a tragedy for the victim and that victim's family and friends.

2) I am a political independent who is proudly not a member of any political party and who considers both Trump and Biden unfit to be President.

That being said, the hypocrisy of many media outlets is blatant and disgusting. If you buy the premise that the first 500,000 U.S. COVID-19 deaths are President Trump's fault, then you also have to buy the premise that the next 600,000 (and counting) U.S. COVID-19 deaths are President Biden's fault. Media outlets that just blame one President while absolving another President are not only shamelessly engaging in partisan propaganda, but they are failing to investigate the real culprit(s): it is undisputed that COVID-19 began in the Wuhan province of China, and it would be interesting to find out if it originated from a lab leak, from improper safety protocols in open markets, from gain of function research gone wrong, or from a deliberate release of a bio-weapon. It would also be interesting to find out what Fauci knew, when he knew it, and how much he profited financially by covering up our government's support of gain of function research.

Despite His Protestations, Dr. Fauci Promotes Propaganda, Not Science

Media members often exhort us to "follow the science," but they display a lack of understanding of what science is. Science is a process of ongoing inquiry based on making an observation, asking a question, forming a hypothesis that answers the question, making a prediction based on that hypothesis, doing an experiment to test the hypothesis, analyzing the results, and then determining if the hypothesis is correct. 

A process that skips any of the above steps is not science. 

It is a sad reality that most of the public discourse about COVID-19 is devoid of legitimate science. In a December 22, 2021 opinion piece titled How Fauci and Collins Shut Down Debate, The Wall Street Journal describes how Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins subverted the practice of legitimate science:

In public, Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins urge American to "follow the science." In private, the two sainted public health officials schemed to quash dissenting views from top scientists. That's the troubling but fair conclusion from emails obtained recently via the Freedom of Information Act by the American Institute for Economic Research. 

The tale unfolded in October 2020 after the launch of the Great Barrington Declaration, a statement by Harvard's Martin Kulldorff, Oxford's Sunetra Gupta and Stanford's Jay Bhattacharya against blanket pandemic lockdowns. They favored a policy of what they called "focused protection" of high-risk populations such as the elderly or those with medical conditions. Thousands of scientists signed the declaration--if they were able to learn about it...

That didn't please the lockdown consensus enforced by public-health officials and the press. Dr. Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health until Sunday [December 19], sent an email on Oct. 8, 2020 to Dr. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

"The proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists...seems to be getting a lot of attention--and even a co-signature from Mike Leavitt at Stanford. There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises," Dr. Collins wrote. "Is it underway?"

Dr. Collins' email is a betrayal of the scientific process and of the public's trust in him. He did not care about observation, hypothesis, and the search for truth; he cared only that thousands of scientists who had followed the scientific method disagreed with his preferred narrative. Dr. Collins thus ordered his lapdog Dr. Fauci to go into attack mode, and Dr. Fauci wagged his proverbial tail in approval before working with his media lackeys to attempt to discredit scientists practicing science. 

Dr. Fauci responded to criticism of his attack mode efforts by declaring that any criticism of him is "criticizing science, because I represent science." What a disgusting and dangerous statement for a public health official to make! No one person can "represent science," because science is a method of objective inquiry, and not the proclamations of an appointed official who has long overstayed his welcome and his usefulness.

A cult of personality has formed around Dr. Fauci such that he really believes that his unfounded opinions are science, and he has convinced many people to believe that delusion. One person is not and can never be science. Dr. Fauci has repeatedly revealed himself to be a public relations spokesperson with an agenda, not a scientist practicing science. As The Wall Street Journal concluded, "Rather than try to manipulate public opinion, the job of health officials is to offer their best scientific advice. They shouldn't act like politicians or censors, and when they do, they squander the public's trust."