His comment was on masks reducing the risk of you getting infected, not infecting others. Which is a selfish point, but nonetheless a correct one.
Think of it this way: "Don't wear a seatbelt because they don't keep other cars from hitting you."
Installing an exhaust filter won't reduce lung cancer risk of the driver. Car dealers should be careful if they advertised filters as medical devices that reducing lung cancer for drivers, rather than an filter that reduces pollution for those who live near the road. Exhaust filters are still a good idea for society, but if you want to reduce the personal risk then an air filter for the AC is required. It would however be a rather bad world to live in if everyone installed air filters for the AC and excluded filter for the exhausts.
Outside of garages or other enclosed spaces where the driver might actually get exposed to the cars exhausts.
take advantage of the difference between the meaning conveyed by words(1) to the general public and the specific words said(2).
(1): I.e. the meaning large groups of people will interpret words as. In this case "masks do not work at all".
(2): I.e. "in a very specific context which in this way doesn't matter in the grater picture masks do not work well".
His comment was extremely ambiguous and certainly sounded to me like he was claiming masks don't work as a tool to fight the pandemic, or at least carefully choosing his works to align himself with the factions in his base that believe they don't.
If you want to say the words "masks don't work", in a screed arguing against masks mandates, you need to be a whole lot more careful than that. And Paul isn't a careless guy, he knew what the fuck he was saying.
Why are you citing "news organizations" and "society" when the offender is a political leader? I don't argue with your point but it seems like your blame is misplaced.