USA Today is adding a disclaimer to an op-ed written by White House trade adviser Peter Navarro attacking Dr. Anthony Fauciās credibility and his handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
On Wednesday evening, it appeared the online version had been updated with the note posted by Bill Sternberg, the publicationās editorial page editor.
Sternberg noted the editorial board published an editorial praising Fauci calling him a ānational treasureā and criticized the White House for attempting to āundermineā or āsidelineā him.
As a part of the publicationās ālongstanding tradition,ā the editorial board reached out to Navarro in order to provide readers with another point of view.
It was published as an opposing point of view paired with the editorial boardās editorial.
The note went on to acknowledge Navarroās editorial as newsworthy and explained why it did not meet the publicationās fact-checking standards.
āNavarroās response echoed comments made to other news outlets in recent days. We felt it was newsworthy because it expanded on those comments, put an on-the-record name to the attacks on Fauci, and contradicted White House denials of an anti-Fauci campaign,ā Sternberg said.
He added, āHowever, several of Navarroās criticisms of Fauci ā on the China travel restrictions, the risk from the coronavirus and falling mortality rates ā were misleading or lacked context. As such, Navarroās op-ed did not meet USA TODAYās fact-checking standards.ā
Navarroās op-ed claimed the infectious disease expert had ābeen wrong about everythingā he has interacted with him on, as IJR previously reported.
Alyssa Farah, White House Director of Strategic Communications, later said his op-ed was not adequately reviewed and is āthe opinion of Peter alone.ā
As he left the White House on Wednesday, President Donald Trump was asked about Navarroās op-ed, as IJR previously reported.
āHe shouldnāt be doing that,ā Trump said.
During an interview with The Atlantic, Fauci called the White Houseās attempts to discredit him āa bit bizarreā and said it only hurts the president in the long run.
