February 28, 2017

"If you read the New York Times, if you read the New York Times... the intent is so evil and so bad."

 The stories are wrong in many cases, but it’s the overall intent. Look at that paper over the last two years. In fact, they had to write a letter of essentially apology to their subscribers because they got the election so wrong. They did a front page article on women talking about me, and the women went absolutely wild because they said that was not what they said. It was a big front-page article, and the Times wouldn’t even apologize and yet they were wrong.... This was a front page article, almost the entire top half of the New York Times, and it was false. It was false. Did they apologize? No. I call them the failing New York Times and they write lies. They write lies. Nobody would know that. For instance, when people read the story on the women—first of all, the reporter who wrote the story has a website full of hatred of Donald Trump. So, he shouldn’t be allowed to be a reporter because he’s not objective. It’s not all, but it has many negative things about Donald Trump. But he shouldn’t be allowed to write on Donald Trump. And, he writes that story. But that’s one of many. So, when you read the Sunday New York Times, it’s just hit after hit after hit. And honestly, I think people are wise to it because if you look at the approval rating, you see it’s down. You know, it’s gone. There’s very little approval.”

In spite of all the 3rd-person references to Donald Trump, I don't have to tell you that's Donald Trump.

75 comments:

rhhardin said...

Taking on the media.

It's nice that somebody is saying it, and Trump as the pulpit now.

Can soap opera news survive as taken-seriously. It's up in the air.

The environment for lefty narratives is not any longer nurturing, even among their traditional audiences.

rhhardin said...

The press is still there and still motivated, albeit for the wrong reason, but it's good enough.

A real story can still make it through.

The fake ones have heavy going, so heavy that it's ruining the papers' reputations.

Their choice.

15. o-o-o ...

traditionalguy said...

DJT has his snake boots were on their slimy necks. He learned doing that from Kellyanne.

He is wise to them. I hope the Secret Service triple checks any NYT hit team members that come into the White House disguised as a Reporters. They are no better than trained CIA assassins.

gerry said...

B-b-but the Times says its subscriptions have gone through the roof since Trump became president.

Fake news. Sad!

MikeR said...

It's called Pursuit. You don't just win, you continue until the enemy is destroyed, or until they know so clearly that they are defeated that they will never again pick you as a target.
Battles can be won without it, but wars are won by pursuit.
Alexander the Great was a master. The last war where we knew it was WWII. The reason we needed a Second Iraq War is because Pres. George HW Bush thought it was a good idea to let the Iraq Army escape back into Iraq. That cost us a trillion dollars and his son's whole presidency.
Finally a Republican who knows this.

Michael K said...

I believe them that subscriptions are up. I even subscribed to read a story the other day.

The New York left is mesmerized by Trump.

So is most of the rest of the country.

I'm not sure it's going to help the Democrats, though,

veni vidi vici said...

It can certainly be said that Trump has a slightly doddering yet highly charismatic "voice".

zipity said...

“I don’t bother reading the editorial page of the New York Times because I get the opinions on the front page.”

http://www.nysun.com/new-york/mr-x-emerges-from-hiding-and-learns-to-stay-mum/89912/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpDcP2yJ_Wk

Unknown said...

Have a Trump sandwich:

White bread
Full of baloney
With Russian dressing
And a small pickle

Fernandinande said...

gerry said...
B-b-but the Times says its subscriptions have gone through the roof since Trump became president.


"Our digital subscriptions are through the roof, our print subscriptions are up."

I take the complete lack of numbers - actual information - to mean that subscriptions are "up" compared to what they expected, which is down.

rhhardin said...

Use ham and cheese instead of baloney and it's what's called a sloppy joe in northern NJ. Rye bread customary.

Ken B said...

If subscribers really are way up since Trump's election that is evidence of bias and a motive for bias. It supports what Trump says.

roesch/voltaire said...

I renewed my subscription as there are not many news agencies that can afford to take time to do in-depth stories such as private profits from public works, as well as the balanced discussion of Steve Bannon last Sunday.

Drago said...

MikeR: "The reason we needed a Second Iraq War is because Pres. George HW Bush thought it was a good idea to let the Iraq Army escape back into Iraq. That cost us a trillion dollars and his son's whole presidency."

That is not the true.

The coalition to liberate Kuwait was built in accordance with UN and US guidance and the sole purpose of the effort was to eject Iraq from Kuwait.

There was no consensus within the US or within the international community to invade Iraq and remove Saddam at that time. In fact, many of the coalition partners made it very clear that any attempt to do just that would cause them to exit the coalition.

FullMoon said...

"This is what the NYT said in its public filing on what to expect in the coming quarter:

Total circulation revenues in the first quarter of 2017 are expected to increase approximately 6 percent compared to the first quarter of 2016.



Total advertising revenues in the first quarter of 2017 are expected to decrease in the high-single digits compared to the first quarter of 2016.

Ultimately, for the NYT to be viable as a going concern, it will need to stem the plunge in ad revenue which may also be adversely impacted by Trump's relentless bashing."

Chuck said...

“The Times is a great, great American jewel,” Mr. Trump declared as he prepared to leave the gathering in the newspaper’s 16th-floor boardroom, where portraits of former presidents adorn the walls.

“A world jewel,” added Mr. Trump, who was seated next to Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the paper’s publisher. “And I hope we can all get along.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/business/media/donald-trump-new-york-times.html?_r=0

Bill R said...

I admire the President but I think he would do himself a service if he turned it down to 11.

buwaya said...

Trump keeps picking the scabs off the infected wound.
Thats an ugly but necessary business.

Bruce Hayden said...

Found it interesting. The quote was not I quotes, but I had it pegged as companies no from PDT pretty quickly, which, presumably, was why Ann did it that way. Also interesting that the NYT is apparently sacrificing their long history of supposed journalistic integrity for short term circulation growth, by feeding red meat to the left. And, maybe that is where we are going, with major publications like the NYT, WaPo, etc being bankrolled by billionaires as their private megaphones. The NYT doesn't really have to make money anymore as long as Carlos Slim is happy, and keeps kicking in more money.

Oso Negro said...

The New York Times can never be criticized enough for their propaganda.

Drago said...

Bruce Hayden: "Also interesting that the NYT is apparently sacrificing their long history of supposed journalistic integrity for short term circulation growth, by feeding red meat to the left."

The insane lefty and "lifetime republican" base needs the ever increasingly unhinged anti-Trump red meat and competition is intense in that sector.

Not that long ago one would have assumed that it would be BuzzFeed and Vox attempting to become more like the Times. Now, of course, we have the converse.

Ad revenue is where "it's at" and the Times is not keeping up there. If the Times was doing so well they wouldn't be shedding space and bringing in outside investors.

The good news for Slim and gang is that the major media properties are such cheap pickups it's easy to indulge one's fantasies by purchasing one of these playthings.

cubanbob said...

Unknown said...
Have a Trump sandwich:

White bread
Full of baloney
With Russian dressing
And a small pickle"

Delicious. Especially after having to eat shit sandwiches over the last eight years.


"gerry said...
B-b-but the Times says its subscriptions have gone through the roof since Trump became president. "

Dang! He's Making America Great Again! Even for those Commie ingrates that were circling the toilet bowel.


Sebastian said...

"There was no consensus within the US or within the international community to invade Iraq and remove Saddam at that time. In fact, many of the coalition partners made it very clear that any attempt to do just that would cause them to exit the coalition." Right. So we did not liberate Iraq when we could have done it at limited cost, instead leaving the country to suffer for another decade and eventually requiring a massive, far more expensive intervention, because there was no "consensus," and partners might have "exited the coalition." This counted as realism at the time.

Chuck said...

What exactly is your problem with what I posted, Drago?

I quoted Trump directly. The Times has Trump's voice on tape, saying those words. Actually, I think that they captured it on video although I haven't seen that video.

I quoted Trump directly, and that is ALL that I did. And then I posted the .url. Nothing but Donald J. Trump's own words.

Maybe you can you can explain it all to an unthinking partisan like me. Is the New York Times a great jewel? A great American, and even international jewel? Or is the Times "failing," and in fact failing in a way that Trump seems to approve of; because the staff is motivated by "hatred" and carried out in "lies."

I can understand a person -- admittedly some sort of extremist, but a single person nonetheless -- taking one of those positions. That the Times is a jewel of American journalism, or the Times is a failing cesspool of hatred and lies. But how to explain BOTH positions? Taken on the public record, within a matter of weeks of each other?

Skeptical Voter said...

Baquets's--who has a track record in running newspapers that is no great shakes--see the aftermath of his gig at the Los Angeles Times, is whistling past the graveyard here.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Yes, Trump's words, going down the toilet bowl of the NYTs, that "failing" newspaper. Another conspiracy theory. Do Trumpists have sympathy dementia? In the months to come the Times as well as WaPo will be covering some very interesting stories. Readership will continue to grow exponentially.

Alex said...

DJT thinks he has the media on the ropes, but all I see is powerful media writing all their hit pieces day after day like a self-appointed Pravda.

FullMoon said...

Chuck says:
I can understand a person -- admittedly some sort of extremist, but a single person nonetheless -- taking one of those positions. That the Times is a jewel of American journalism, or the Times is a failing cesspool of hatred and lies. But how to explain BOTH positions? Taken on the public record, within a matter of weeks of each other?


They attacked him and his family with lies and innuendo. He changed his opinion.
What is the mystery?

Drago said...

Chuck:"What exactly is your problem with what I posted, Drago?"

I did not comment about your posting.

I'm sorry you are now "hearing" conversations that have never occurred.

Perhaps a re-calibration of your medications are in order.

Drago said...

FullMoon: "They attacked him and his family with lies and innuendo. He changed his opinion.
What is the mystery?"

Oh, there is a "mystery" alright.

But it doesn't involve Trump's comments about the NYT.

Drago said...

Unknown: "In the months to come the Times as well as WaPo will be covering some very interesting stories."

We can expect more pictures and breathless coverage/complaints by the MSM and some "lifelong republicans" of Trump staffers snapping photos of large groups in the Oval Office while sitting on the couch?

Great!

Can't wait.

Chuck said...

FullMoon said...

They attacked him and his family with lies and innuendo. He changed his opinion.
What is the mystery?


Trump called the paper "failing New York Times" a long time ago. Then Trump met with them (under somewhat psychotically confused circumstances) and said nice things, and now has gone back to bashing them.

The way that I see it, Trump says whatever his mood dictates, at any given time. I'm not sure that Trump thinks too much beyond a single news cycle. I don't think that Trump really thinks about the Times in any way beyond whether or not they are serving his own interests at the moment.

I do think that Trump likes to meet people, and likes to be charming with them, and then when he is on his own he will say whatever his own warped psyche dictates. And to an extent that most people in public life could hardly imagine, Trump will engage in the most personal of attacks.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "I'm not sure that Trump thinks too much beyond a single news cycle."

LOL

Projection. It "ain't" pretty.

FullMoon said...

Chuck says
....I do think that Trump likes to meet people, and likes to be charming with them, and then when he is on his own he will say whatever his own warped psyche dictates. And to an extent that most people in public life could hardly imagine, Trump will engage in the most personal of attacks.


Is DiNiro "Punch him in the face" in public life?

How about NYT apology for reporter calling Melania a hooker " based on unconfirmed rumors she was an escort"

Kimmel referencing Trump having a bowel movement?

How about comedian Louis Ck ranting about Palins cunt?

What is the absolute worse thing Trump has said in public?

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "I do think that Trump likes to meet people, and likes to be charming with them, and then when he is on his own he will say whatever his own warped psyche dictates. And to an extent that most people in public life could hardly imagine, Trump will engage in the most personal of attacks"

There is no question you are a victim of many fevered imaginings.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Unknown said...
Have a Trump sandwich"


Far better, tastier and more nourishing than the shit sandwich that is Hillary.

Drago said...

exiledonmainstreet: "Far better, tastier and more nourishing than the shit sandwich that is Hillary."

I'm not sure it is appropriate that you speak for Huma.

Known Unknown said...

Unknown does not understand the staggering difference between ad revenue and subscription revenue and which one is inherently more important to the New York Times.

Drago said...

Known Unknown: "Unknown does not understand the staggering difference between ad revenue and subscription revenue and which one is inherently more important to the New York Times."

That's all just icky P&L/Balance Sheet sort of stuff.

Why can't we all just buy the world a Coke?

exiledonmainstreet said...

Unknown does not understand most things.

Anything having to do with reality sails about 2 miles over her head.

Chuck said...

FullMoon said...
Chuck says
...
How about NYT apology for reporter calling Melania a hooker " based on unconfirmed rumors she was an escort"
...


A New York Times reporter made a private comment to that effect. It wasn't published in the paper. It clearly was not edited, and wasn't even intended as a public statement. And, it was uttered at a NY "Fashion Week" event, by a Times staffer who didn't do any political coverage.

And despite all of that, the reporter was publicly reprimanded. And, he apologized.
And, the Times' public editor did a complete autopsy on the matter and published it. Here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/public-editor/melania-trump-emily-ratajkowski-jacob-bernstein.html

So your question, "How about an apology...?", has been answered in the affirmative.

I note that the reporter didn't say anything about grabbing Melania by her pussy.

Hagar said...

George W. told some representative of the MSM: "I do not accept that you represent 'popular opinion.'"

Straight up language that AA can approve of, and worth more than Trump's whole tirade.

exiledonmainstreet said...

The "life long Republican" rushes to the defense of the NY Times.

Just like any True Conservative would.

FullMoon said...

Chuck said...

FullMoon said...
Chuck says
...
How about NYT apology for reporter calling Melania a hooker " based on unconfirmed rumors she was an escort"
...


A New York Times reporter made a private comment to that effect. It wasn't published in the paper. It clearly was not edited, and wasn't even intended as a public statement. And, it was uttered at a NY "Fashion Week" event, by a Times staffer who didn't do any political coverage.

And despite all of that, the reporter was publicly reprimanded. And, he apologized.
And, the Times' public editor did a complete autopsy on the matter and published it. Here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/public-editor/melania-trump-emily-ratajkowski-jacob-bernstein.html

So your question, "How about an apology...?", has been answered in the affirmative.

I note that the reporter didn't say anything about grabbing Melania by her pussy.



The reporter himself declined to comment beyond his tweets, yet he too says he was over the line. But does that mean he was repeating false rumors or making unfounded accusations? We don’t know


Nope I was referencing another "apology" that included the phrase "unconfirmed rumors she was an escort". Your link also includes similar slime.

FullMoon said...

Chuck says:
I note that the reporter didn't say anything about grabbing Melania by her pussy.


Dodn;t say anything about your Mother either, so what is your point?

Nyamujal said...

At this point it seems like Trump and the NYT have a nice symbiotic relationship. He trashes them, and their subscriptions go up. I don't see any reason for them to change their coverage of him. It's not like Trump supporters will line up and buy the paper if they publish a fawning piece or two.

Chuck said...

FullMoon said...
Chuck says:
"I note that the reporter didn't say anything about grabbing Melania by her pussy."

Dodn;t say anything about your Mother either, so what is your point?


Huh. Lemme think about that. Okay, I thought about it. My point is that Donald Trump, however great he may or may not be as a president, is an uncouth, rude, vulgar, hateful, manipulative, crass, ignorant, duplicitous, egomaniacal sociopath.


Chuck said...

exiledonmainstreet said...
The "life long Republican" rushes to the defense of the NY Times.

Just like any True Conservative would.


Oh fuck off.

If loyalty were an unbendable prerequisite, no "conservative" could ever doubt the National Review for its Never Trump issue. (I didn't, fwiw.)

I actually do think that the NY Times' editorial board is a liberal/Democrat mouthpiece. Unprincipled. Phony. Deceptive. Just like what the NRO and MRC guys have been saying for as long as I have been reading them. That is what I would have said to the Times editors, to their faces. Not that they are an American "jewel," as Trump did.

But I wouldn't call them "failing" either. I'd have one, defensible, cogent viewpoint.

Earnest Prole said...

Politics is the cake; slamming the media is the icing. If you mistake the icing for the cake, you end up like Sarah Palin.

Drago said...

Nyamujal: "I don't see any reason for them to change their coverage of him."

Agreed. There is nothing wrong with having and proceeding from a specific point of view.

However, that does require one to be honest about the point of view and discarding the fiction that the NYT is a "straight down the middle" entity.

We all know that the NYT is having it both ways.

Yancey Ward said...

By keeping up the attacks, Trump is pushing media organs further and further left- in other words he is playing the same "don't-normalize" game many of the more clueless leftist columnists encourage the media to play.

This is the strategic mistake papers like WaPo and NYTimes are making- they are abandoning the political center completely. This is what happens when you preach to the choir- you get more interest from the choir itself, but such additional attention starts to wane after a time.

There is danger in this for Trump, but I think the risk is worth it, especially given how this was one of the largest factors in his win in the first place- why abandon a strategy that was clearly successful in November?

hombre said...

NRA trolls NYT. Delicious.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tNsqE5nJpSs

FullMoon said...

Chuck said...

FullMoon said...
Chuck says:
"I note that the reporter didn't say anything about grabbing Melania by her pussy."

Dodn;t say anything about your Mother either, so what is your point?


Huh. Lemme think about that. Okay, I thought about it. My point is that Donald Trump, however great he may or may not be as a president, is an uncouth, rude, vulgar, hateful, manipulative, crass, ignorant, duplicitous, egomaniacal sociopath.

And I suppose you consider that a bad thing in a President?

Trumpit said...

I live in California yet I subscribe @$15/month to the failing New York Times. We all have our failings some of us have more than we'd like. There is something called "critical thinking" that we can use to draw conclusions about what's being reported. I don't blindly accept what anyone says anymore. I've been disappointed, and harmed too often.

Trump is on a failed-president trajectory because he is focused, like Nixon, on his perceived enemies, rather than on the monumental job at hand: steering the ship of state. He does seem capable of taking advice from generals and others whom he respects. Perhaps, that will save his presidency.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...

"I can understand a person -- admittedly some sort of extremist, but a single person nonetheless -- taking one of those positions. That the Times is a jewel of American journalism, or the Times is a failing cesspool of hatred and lies. But how to explain BOTH positions? Taken on the public record, within a matter of weeks of each other?"

That is because you are twisting his words to create a straw man to knock down. It is what leftists who pretend to be lifelong republicans with little critical thinking ability do.

viator said...

"The truth is that the truth didn't matter to The New York Times."

buwaya said...

"Trump is on a failed-president trajectory because he is focused, like Nixon, on his perceived enemies"

Was Nixon focused on his enemies? Or was he more so than Presidents usually are?
I suspect this was mainly a narrative created by his enemies.

FullMoon said...

Trumpit said...

I live in California yet I subscribe @$15/month to the failing New York Times. We all have our failings some of us have more than we'd like. There is something called "critical thinking" that we can use to draw conclusions about what's being reported. I don't blindly accept what anyone says anymore. I've been disappointed, and harmed too often.

Trump is on a failed-president trajectory because he is focused, like Nixon, on his perceived enemies, rather than on the monumental job at hand: steering the ship of state. He does seem capable of taking advice from generals and others whom he respects. Perhaps, that will save his presidency.


Nope. Trump is focused on the MSM because a minority of the public blindly accepts what the MSM says. By contradicting them when they mislead the public, he hopes more will be like you, and not believe everything they hear or read without thinking.

Achilles said...

Blogger roesch/voltaire said...
"I renewed my subscription as there are not many news agencies that can afford to take time to do in-depth stories such as private profits from public works, as well as the balanced discussion of Steve Bannon last Sunday."

In other words You renewed your subscription because they are obviously on your political team and they are pushing a narrative you believe supports your political paradigm. Meanwhile are we to believe you let your subscription fall during the obama years because you didn't want in-depth articles during that administration? Don't worry they don't investigate democrats.

The NYT has already fallen. The NYT is huffpo with some valuable office space they can rent out and some printing presses that are worth steel recycle rates specifically because no thinking person can say they are a news outlet with a straight face. They are a partisan think tank. Nothing more nothing less.

FullMoon said...

buwaya said...

"Trump is on a failed-president trajectory because he is focused, like Nixon, on his perceived enemies"

Was Nixon focused on his enemies? Or was he more so than Presidents usually are?
I suspect this was mainly a narrative created by his enemies.


And, at a time when there was no internet, and few news outlets on TV

Achilles said...

"Trump is on a failed-president trajectory because he is focused, like Nixon, on his perceived enemies, rather than on the monumental job at hand: steering the ship of state. He does seem capable of taking advice from generals and others whom he respects. Perhaps, that will save his presidency."

You are going to see tonight just how focused he is on the ship of state. 37.5% for the state department. 24% for the EPA. Etc.

I look forward to the tears.

Trumpit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chuck said...

Achilles tell me how I am "twisting" Trump's words. I haven't done much more than to quote him on this comments page.

OGWiseman said...

I don't read the NYT regularly, and he might be right about them, but he's said so many flagrantly, demonstrably false things, even just since becoming President, that I'm simply not interested in his complaints. Get over your press coverage and talk about something that matters.

buwaya puti said...

Was Nixon more of a mean, paranoid individual than Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, or Franklin Roosevelt? Or more inclined to dirty tricks, himself or through proxies? Or more corrupt?

I don't see it. What we know today, or reasonably suspect, is enough to put the lot of them in the same boat at least. What I do see is a double standard, that applied to Nixon but not to his Democrat predecessors.

Achilles said...

Blogger OGWiseman said...
"I don't read the NYT regularly, and he might be right about them, but he's said so many flagrantly, demonstrably false things, even just since becoming President, that I'm simply not interested in his complaints. Get over your press coverage and talk about something that matters."

Ooh. List these things please. Only quotes not bullshit the people on the left like Chuck make up. Then demonstrate how they are false in a factual sense. I know it isn't what you meant because all of the demonstrably false stuff really turns out to be disagrees with leftists.

Either way let's see what you have.

Trumpit said...

Do you recall that Nixon resigned before he could be impeached? Nixon was a mean, paranoid individual who wanted to use the IRS to "screw" (audit) the people on his Enemies List according to John Dean. John Dean, Nixon's White House counsel, was one point-man to accomplish that corrupt, malicious goal. The Nixon-appointed Commissioner of the IRS, Mr. Donald Alexander, refused to go along with Nixon's "dirty tricks."

buwaya said...

"Do you recall that Nixon resigned before he could be impeached?"

Would Lyndon Johnson have been in danger of being impeached had his own, numerous official misbehaviors become public and scandalous through coverage by the press?

traditionalguy said...

LBJ would have been shot by a volunteer firing squad if 10% of his deeds were exposed.

viator said...

The New York Slimes "All the News That's Print to Fit" our dogma.

Unknown said...

I believe them that subscriptions are up. I even subscribed to read a story the other day.

Don't do that. JUST OPEN IT UP IN AN INCOGNITO TAB/WINDOW.

Chuck said...

The entire link at Breitbart is pretty damn interesting.

Interesting to me, mostly, for the exposition of one of the great Trump language tics. The tic is Trump's habit of repeating the last phrase, or the central phrase, of a sentence.

I'll cut and paste the bit of the transcript that Althouse posted (there is much more, all along the same lines, at the linked Breitbart page), and I'll use bolding to spotlight the Trump language tic. Here goes, in italics:

The stories are wrong in many cases, but it’s the overall intent. Look at that paper over the last two years. In fact, they had to write a letter of essentially apology to their subscribers because they got the election so wrong. They did a front page article on women talking about me, and the women went absolutely wild because they said that was not what they said. It was a big front-page article, and the Times wouldn’t even apologize and yet they were wrong.... This was a front page article, almost the entire top half of the New York Times, and it was false. It was false. Did they apologize? No. I call them the failing New York Times and they write lies. They write lies. Nobody would know that. For instance, when people read the story on the women—first of all, the reporter who wrote the story has a website full of hatred of Donald Trump. So, he shouldn’t be allowed to be a reporter because he’s not objective. It’s not all, but it has many negative things about Donald Trump. But he shouldn’t be allowed to write on Donald Trump. And, he writes that story. But that’s one of many. So, when you read the Sunday New York Times, it’s just hit after hit after hit. And honestly, I think people are wise to it because if you look at the approval rating, you see it’s down. You know, it’s gone. There’s very little approval.

Chuck said...

You want more? Okay. From the same Breitbart page, but not part of the interview; rather it is from Trump's CPAC speech:

I want you all to know that we are fighting the fake news. It’s fake, phony, fake. A few days ago I called the fake news the enemy of the people. And they are. They are the enemy of the people. Because they have no sources, they just make ’em up when there are none. I saw one story recently where they said, “Nine people have confirmed.” There’re no nine people. I don’t believe there was one or two people. Nine people. And I said, “Give me a break.” Because I know the people, I know who they talk to. There were no nine people. But they say, “Nine people.” And somebody reads it and they think, “Oh, nine people. They have nine sources.” They make up sources. They’re very dishonest people. In fact, in covering my comments, the dishonest media did not explain that I called the fake news the enemy of the people. The fake news. They dropped off the word “fake.” And all of a sudden, the story became the media is the enemy.

They take the word “fake” out. And now I’m saying, “Oh, no, this is no good.” But that’s the way they are. So I’m not against the media, I’m not against the press. I don’t mind bad stories if I deserve them. And I tell ya, I love good stories, but we don’t get—I don’t get too many of them. But I am only against the fake news, media or press. Fake, fake. They have to leave that word. I’m against the people that make up stories and make up sources. They shouldn’t be allowed to use sources unless they use somebody’s name. Let their name be put out there. Let their name be put out. “A source says that Donald Trump is a horrible, horrible human being.” Let ’em say it to my face. Let there be no more sources. And remember this — and in not — in all cases. I mean, I had a story written yesterday about me in Reuters by a very honorable man. It was a very fair story. There are some great reporters around. They’re talented, they’re honest as the day is long. They’re great. But there are some terrible dishonest people and they do a tremendous disservice to our country and to our people. A tremendous disservice. They are very dishonest people.

...

Achilles said...

Trumpit said...

"Nixon was a mean, paranoid individual who wanted to use the IRS to "screw" (audit) the people on his Enemies List according to John Dean."

So like Obama then.