An example of how the paper of record whitewashes Trump's words and actions
It is Sunday, June 7, 2026. Donald Trump appeared on Meet the Press, where he was interviewed by Kristin Welker in a barn in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin. Seems an odd location, but hey - not much is normal these days.
Elected officials may not like facing reporters on TV and Trump clearly is no exception. Unfortunately, Trump has mastered the art of attacking the reporter instead of answering valid questions. Today's performance from the elderly president was no different.
Apparently the weather was stormy and the storms interrupted the interview multiple times. In the interview, Trump bragged about "building the military" in his first term; now he's using the U.S. military in a "military excursion" (not a war.) Welker noted that a military blockade is "an act of war." He bragged about taking over Venezuela without losing any soldiers. He spoke in simplistic terms – with regards to the leadership of Iran – "the third group we've been dealing with," he said – he refused to name the leaders when asked, instead claiming that Welker would "know who they are" and that "they are leaders - they are respected - they are respected by the people who have to respect them" (whatever that means.)
(As a reminder, just a year ago, the White House issued a statement claiming that Iran's nuclear capabilities were "obliterated" but then we had to go to war with Iran this year to make sure Iran's obliterated nuclear capabilities are once again obliterated. Seems very Orwellian.)
Anyway, Trump gave a long and meandering chat about his hatred of endless wars, how great his military takeover of Venezuela was, how there will be no NBC or Meet the Press if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, how he's wiped out Iran's nuclear capability (again), how Obama gave Iran a "path" to nuclear weapons (not true), the war/excursion/whatever we're calling it now is almost over.
Welker tried to get some points in to fact check Trump - but toward the end, he couldn't handle her pushback any more. He had a tantrum - called her names and then weakly stood up and left the interview before it was over. It was an unpleasant end to a rambling, dishonest interview that included a rationale for why taxpayers should be on the hook to pay the people convicted of attacking the Capitol a fee for their services, even though his $1.776 billion fund designed to reward the people convicted of violence at the Capitol on 1/6/21 is a fund that many in his party do not seem to want to go on record as supporting.
But in covering this story, the New York Times decided to lead with Trump's statements, instead of the fact that Trump melted down at the end when asked for evidence to support his claims of election fraud in California. Instead of providing data or a source to back up his claims, he called Welker names and then walked out of the interview. In other words, he behaved in a terribly unprofessional way.
Here's the New York Times headline:
Here is the BBC's headline - notice the difference?
Here's the Washington Post headline:
The New York Times story works very hard to hide Trump's unprofessional behavior. Here's the first few graphs of the New York Times' story:
As you can see, the story opens by presenting Trump's claims as if they were true – that he never guaranteed there would be no war in a Trump presidency; he's promised nothing like that; the Iran war is not an endless war. Four graphs in one reads the first pushback to Trump's claims - that the president lied on camera IS the news and that should be the lead. Instead, the reporter and editors have chosen to lead with Trump's perspective and words.
In the seventh graph, there is the first mention that he "ended the wide-ranging interview after being repeatedly pressed by Ms. Welker about claiming, without evidence, that recent elections in California were rigged."
There is no mention of the name-calling, his rage at being asked for evidence of election fraud, the obvious physical weakness he exhibited when he tried to suddenly stand up to stalk out of the interview. This is a story that instead of accurately reporting that that Trump steered the interview off the rails, transcribes Trump's words with no context as to the falsehoods scattered throughout his interview.
When the paper of record softens and hides the dishonesty of an elected official, we all lose. I don't know why the New York Times is so intent on protecting Trump from the consequences of his actions, but the people who act in this way are not reporters - they are press agents. The folks over at the New York Times should stop protecting Trump and instead focus on their work as members of the Fourth Estate, responsible for accurately informing their readers about the facts of a particular claim.
Transcription is not reporting, however much the New York Times wants to make it so. For a fact-check of Trump's claims, you have to go elsewhere. Here is the fact-check from NBC News.
Comments