The government has overreacted to a weekend of bad coronavirus press 

The prime minister’s recovery has signalled a new phase in the press coverage of the government’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis. On Saturday the Financial Times published a critical account of attempts to procure ventilators. Then the Sunday Times’ Insight team published a longer critique of the ‘lost’ 38 days when, it argued, the UK was too slow off the mark in its response to the coronavirus outbreak. The piece took particular aim at the prime minister for not chairing the first five Covid COBR meetings. 

So far, so unsurprising. Governments have to expect to be criticised by the press – even Boris Johnson’s administration, which has enjoyed a run of uncritical coverage from many supportive titles. In part – as earlier stories have been – the stories are motivated by people attempting to make others the scapegoat in advance of blame games to come. In part, they reflect frustration inside and outside government about why some steps are taking longer than expected. Just before the prime minister was taken ill, the press was full of inside criticism of the civil service, of Public Health England and the top ranks of the NHS, as well as reports of disagreements between key ministers.

On most occasions, governments resist the temptation to give their side of the story in the hope that the story will quickly pass. On this occasion, however, both the Number 10 and the Department of Health rebuttal units went into overdrive, issued point by point rebuttals and posted them on the government website.

There is a good reason why rapid rebuttal units are a long-established feature of political – if not so often of government – communications. The government is clearly determined to knock on the head any accusations that might undermine public support for the lockdown and confidence in its handling – and will be concerned that the stories, especially the Sunday Times' piece, were being widely shared. And indeed it did make some useful corrections. The 2000-word DoH response, for example, corrects the dates of meetings and spelling out the size of PPE shipments both to and from China.

The main effect of these rebuttals is to draw more attention to the stories

However, the immediate impact of these rebuttals is less likely to be to convince the critics than to draw attention to the stories. It could, of course, be that the main target are the journalists, not the public, and that the rebuttals are meant as warning shots – but this assumes that the journalists (or their editors) were not confident in the sources and information which shaped their stories.

It will not help the government to give the impression that it is spending time and effort in a forensic defence of its own reputation rather than in sorting out some of the real logistical problems it faces – whether on using the testing capacity it has created, getting a grip on the rising death toll in care homes or ensuring that the promised personal protective equipment is in place. That is what the public cares about now – and the best way to convince people that the government is in control is by dealing with current concerns.

The government should be prepared to admit that it has not got every call right

The government could also usefully look over the Channel, where something unusual happened last week. President Macron used an address to the French people to admit that he had made mistakes; that France was underprepared and that this had meant the response to the crisis was not as effective as it could be. There have been some examples of that in the UK – one press conference where health secretary Matt Hancock admitted to delays, an admission from chief medical officer Chris Whitty of lessons to be learned from Germany and the way in which the chancellor appears prepared to tweak his schemes in response to gaps or weaknesses that emerge. But those are the exceptions. The general line has been that everything is going as well as it could be, and the UK is – to quote the deputy chief medical officer – an “international exemplar”, and any criticism is out of bounds.

This sort of defensiveness creates no hiding place for government. It would do much better if it treated the public like grown-ups, able to understand that this is very difficult and that mistakes will be made. It is much more convincing and reassuring for ministers to say that they will learn from mistakes, rather than refusing to acknowledge that any have been made.

The government should recognise that transparency makes its job easier

Journalists have no opportunity to answer rebuttals printed on the government website, but the government will soon face another source of scrutiny. Parliament has been largely absent for the last few weeks as key decisions have been made. It is now set to return, albeit in part-virtual form. Ministers – and that includes the prime minister and his deputy – can expect more questions. They must choose how best to respond to the inevitable criticism they will face. They can dig themselves in a bunker. They could come out blustering. But neither is a good idea. The best strategy is what the PM himself once called “levelling with the British people.”