[BostonCard]

I've now read the additional responses and still remain confused.  Trump tells Woodward in February words to effect of "I know the virus is serious but I'm downplaying it to avoid panic."  In rebutting critics who said he should have revealed this info sooner, Woodward replies:  it wasn't until May that he was satisfied "that Trump's comments were based on reliable information."  

WTH does that mean?  Either Trump said it or not in February.  What further "reliable information" did Woodward think he needed . . . that the virus was, in fact, serious?  [If so, that was already out there, certainly way before May.  But really, that's not even "the story" - the story is Trump believed A but told People B.].

Again, Woodward's explanation strikes me as a complete non-sequitur.  

Just come correct and say book sales and November.  
At least then you don't put yourself in the President's company by coming across as a self-interested liar (just the former!).

I agree with you.  I know that you generally want to report unsubstantiated information from most people, but the President generally falls into a different category.  It seems generally acknowledged that a President's pronouncement are newsworthy in and of themselves.  So I don't think it would have required some confirmation for Woodward to announce that Trump has privately admitted that he thinks the virus is a big deal.

One minor quibble, I'm not sure that releasing the info now hurts Trump that much.  Remember, earlier this week everyone was in a tizzy because Trump had called fallen soldiers "losers".  I think this new info is probably less damaging to Trump than the comments about soldiers, and, as is typical, this "scandal" has elbowed out reports of those earlier comments.

BC

[BostonCard]

I've now read the additional responses and still remain confused.  Trump tells Woodward in February words to effect of "I know the virus is serious but I'm downplaying it to avoid panic."  In rebutting critics who said he should have revealed this info sooner, Woodward replies:  it wasn't until May that he was satisfied "that Trump's comments were based on reliable information."  

WTH does that mean?  Either Trump said it or not in February.  What further "reliable information" did Woodward think he needed . . . that the virus was, in fact, serious?  [If so, that was already out there, certainly way before May.  But really, that's not even "the story" - the story is Trump believed A but told People B.].

Again, Woodward's explanation strikes me as a complete non-sequitur.  

Just come correct and say book sales and November.  
At least then you don't put yourself in the President's company by coming across as a self-interested liar (just the former!).

I agree with you.  I know that you generally want to report unsubstantiated information from most people, but the President generally falls into a different category.  It seems generally acknowledged that a President's pronouncement are newsworthy in and of themselves.  So I don't think it would have required some confirmation for Woodward to announce that Trump has privately admitted that he thinks the virus is a big deal.

One minor quibble, I'm not sure that releasing the info now hurts Trump that much.  Remember, earlier this week everyone was in a tizzy because Trump had called fallen soldiers "losers".  I think this new info is probably less damaging to Trump than the comments about soldiers, and, as is typical, this "scandal" has elbowed out reports of those earlier comments.

BC