If Donald Trump demands air time from the networks to broadcast to America a campaign speech commingled with disinformation about the coronavirus that will kill more people, any outlet that runs such a speech live might as well be pulling the trigger on American lives themselves.

I understand that's a very strong statement—but we already know exactly what this man will say about the coronavirus. He has filmed several videos himself in which he has made his intention clear. And his intention is to say things that will get people killed. You don't air that.

Social media has started curbing some of his posts, and media must now do the same with his live events. How many times in the last 90 days has media had to cut away from an event Trump said was "news" that turned out to be a campaign speech? At some point it's on media to learn.

The first judgment any news editor must make about whether to run a story—and it's a judgment commonly made in crisis situations—is whether the material to be aired will get people killed.

For some reason, media *stopped executing this journalistic function* during the pandemic.

Every public statement Trump makes about the coronavirus is not only false, is not only a campaign speech rather than a public service announcement, is not only dangerous disinformation in a public health crisis, it clearly and vilely causes death. Such statements can't be aired.

At some point at least one media outlet must take a brave stand and refuse to run a presidential address. The outlet's public editor can tell viewers why the address is not being run—and the mountain of evidence editors used to make that decision in the interest of public safety.