Author Topic: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?  (Read 19791 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #75 on: January 22, 2017, 07:49:55 AM »

Online saltlover

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9819
  • Tommy Points: 2131
Is there any actual proven number of inauguration crowd
numbers/ attendees ?

No, but public transit ridership on Friday was 200k less than in 2013, almost 500k less than in 2009, and as of 4pm on Saturday (before most people from the march had started leaving) was equal to total ridership on Friday.  (Note: Trump's press secretary made up false numbers about ridership at his press conference.)

You can conclude from that what you will, but the Metro is definitely a major way people get to these events due to parking bans and road closures within miles of where the inauguration takes place, and the limited number of hotel beds within walking distance.

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #76 on: January 22, 2017, 07:56:41 AM »

Offline hwangjini_1

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11937
  • Tommy Points: 1504
  • bammokja
I believe Gandhi is the only person who knew about real democracy not democracy as the right to go and buy what you want, but democracy as the responsibility to be accountable to everyone around you. Democracy begins with freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from fear, and freedom from hatred.
- Vandana Shiva

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #77 on: January 22, 2017, 08:27:51 AM »

Offline TrueFan

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1791
  • Tommy Points: 79
This how the independent handles them:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-speech-cia-wall-heroes-john-brennan-ashamed-a7539836.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-inauguration-what-did-he-say-a7539831.html
I think it's incredibly unfair to compare the crowd Obama got and the one Trump did.

Obama being sworn in was a very important historical moment for our country. It was a landmark moment and something a lot of people accross different parties were even proud to see. Of course Trump was never going to see the same turnout.

The fact the media tried to make a story out of it shows the bias. At that point I could care less with how Trump responds because I'm already irritated by the media trying to make a non story a story.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 09:05:26 AM by TrueFan »

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #78 on: January 22, 2017, 08:44:16 AM »

Offline Cman

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12257
  • Tommy Points: 352
This how the independent handles them:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-speech-cia-wall-heroes-john-brennan-ashamed-a7539836.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-inauguration-what-did-he-say-a7539831.html
I think it's incredibly unfair to compare the crowd Obama got and the one Trump did.

Obama being sworn in was a very important historically moment for our country. It was a landmark moment and something a lot of people accross different parties were even proud to see. Of course Trump was never going to see the same turnout.

The fact the media tried to make a story out of it shows the bias. At that point I could care less with how Trump responds because I'm already irritated by the media trying to make a non story a story.

I agree that crowd size isn't a big deal, especially in this day and age of Internet. Trump and his administration made it a big deal by blatantly lying about the numbers. It shows a level of pettiness that belongs in a banana republic. Not here in the US.
Celtics fan for life.

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #79 on: January 22, 2017, 08:53:10 AM »

Offline TrueFan

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1791
  • Tommy Points: 79
This how the independent handles them:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-speech-cia-wall-heroes-john-brennan-ashamed-a7539836.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-inauguration-what-did-he-say-a7539831.html
I think it's incredibly unfair to compare the crowd Obama got and the one Trump did.

Obama being sworn in was a very important historically moment for our country. It was a landmark moment and something a lot of people accross different parties were even proud to see. Of course Trump was never going to see the same turnout.

The fact the media tried to make a story out of it shows the bias. At that point I could care less with how Trump responds because I'm already irritated by the media trying to make a non story a story.

I agree that crowd size isn't a big deal, especially in this day and age of Internet. Trump and his administration made it a big deal by blatantly lying about the numbers. It shows a level of pettiness that belongs in a banana republic. Not here in the US.
Its just not that big of a deal to me. He responded to the media trying to make a non story a story. Trump naturally is about branding and perhaps he was wrong regarding turnout but who cares. He was responding to the media who was unfairly trying to make him look bad.

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #80 on: January 22, 2017, 09:10:48 AM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11463
  • Tommy Points: 1251
This how the independent handles them:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-speech-cia-wall-heroes-john-brennan-ashamed-a7539836.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-inauguration-what-did-he-say-a7539831.html
I think it's incredibly unfair to compare the crowd Obama got and the one Trump did.

Obama being sworn in was a very important historically moment for our country. It was a landmark moment and something a lot of people accross different parties were even proud to see. Of course Trump was never going to see the same turnout.

The fact the media tried to make a story out of it shows the bias. At that point I could care less with how Trump responds because I'm already irritated by the media trying to make a non story a story.
Neither you nor I are in the heads of editors when they determine the newsworthiness of a report.  But... it makes sense to me that news media is both a journalistic endeavor, beholden to journalistic ethics, AND a business, beholden to the sustainance of the organization.  There are undoubtedly possible comflicts of interest inherent in decisions about what to place on page 1 or "above the fold" on a daily basis. 

There is not much doubt in my mind that the NY Times considers the "tweak" value of stories like crowd size in the decision to run the story prominently.  To expect them to do otherwise is foolish.  One of the differentiation points between "legit" news providers and "rags" is whether the headlines and stories designed to tweak/needle a president or to gain the attention of readers are true or not. Breitbart, National Enquirer do not care about truth.  Whether the NY Times does depends on who you talk to. 

Bottom line is that selling newspapers (or getting views) is part of what print media lives for.   Showing the crowd size is both credible evidence of reality and a great way to get under the skin of, and response from, the new president.  To blame the paper for its goading and not the POTUS and his team for responding is one-sided.  When two sides tango, both should be accountable.  If you don't think Trump's easy impulse to react to being goaded is relevant, you are missing something that could be incredibly important as we move ahead. It's a very troubling sign for the future.  I truly hope he starts to display some evidence that he will not be so easily engaged in this trivial crap.  It's one thing when it's the NY Times, it will be another story when it's Kim Jong-un.

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #81 on: January 22, 2017, 09:14:45 AM »

Offline TrueFan

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1791
  • Tommy Points: 79
This how the independent handles them:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-speech-cia-wall-heroes-john-brennan-ashamed-a7539836.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-inauguration-what-did-he-say-a7539831.html
I think it's incredibly unfair to compare the crowd Obama got and the one Trump did.

Obama being sworn in was a very important historically moment for our country. It was a landmark moment and something a lot of people accross different parties were even proud to see. Of course Trump was never going to see the same turnout.

The fact the media tried to make a story out of it shows the bias. At that point I could care less with how Trump responds because I'm already irritated by the media trying to make a non story a story.
Neither you nor I are in the heads of editors when they determine the newsworthiness of a report.  But... it makes sense to me that news media is both a journalistic endeavor, beholden to journalistic ethics, AND a business, beholden to the sustainance of the organization.  There are undoubtedly possible comflicts of interest inherent in decisions about what to place on page 1 or "above the fold" on a daily basis. 

There is not much doubt in my mind that the NY Times considers the "tweak" value of stories like crowd size in the decision to run the story prominently.  To expect them to do otherwise is foolish.  One of the differentiation points between "legit" news providers and "rags" is whether the headlines and stories designed to tweak/needle a president or to gain the attention of readers are true or not. Breitbart, National Enquirer do not care about truth.  Whether the NY Times does depends on who you talk to. 

Bottom line is that selling newspapers (or getting views) is part of what print media lives for.   Showing the crowd size is both credible evidence of reality and a great way to get under the skin of, and response from, the new president.  To blame the paper for its goading and not the POTUS and his team for responding is one-sided.  When two sides tango, both should be accountable.  If you don't think Trump's easy impulse to react to being goaded is relevant, you are missing something that could be incredibly important as we move ahead. It's a very troubling sign for the future.  I truly hope he starts to display some evidence that he will not be so easily engaged in this trivial crap.  It's one thing when it's the NY Times, it will be another story when it's Kim Jong-un.
Meh. We need a strong leader. I could care less about political correctness so long as Trump delivers.

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #82 on: January 22, 2017, 09:30:28 AM »

Offline chicagoceltic

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 553
  • Tommy Points: 75
This how the independent handles them:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-speech-cia-wall-heroes-john-brennan-ashamed-a7539836.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-inauguration-what-did-he-say-a7539831.html
I think it's incredibly unfair to compare the crowd Obama got and the one Trump did.

Obama being sworn in was a very important historically moment for our country. It was a landmark moment and something a lot of people accross different parties were even proud to see. Of course Trump was never going to see the same turnout.

The fact the media tried to make a story out of it shows the bias. At that point I could care less with how Trump responds because I'm already irritated by the media trying to make a non story a story.

I agree that crowd size isn't a big deal, especially in this day and age of Internet. Trump and his administration made it a big deal by blatantly lying about the numbers. It shows a level of pettiness that belongs in a banana republic. Not here in the US.
Its just not that big of a deal to me. He responded to the media trying to make a non story a story. Trump naturally is about branding and perhaps he was wrong regarding turnout but who cares. He was responding to the media who was unfairly trying to make him look bad.
I agree that crowd size is not a big deal and in most elections it would not be a deal at all.  It is different this year because it clearly matters to President Trump.  At every turn throughout his campaign he would brag about the size of his crowds and the ratings he brought.  His supporters would do the same in an effort to show how he was overwhelmingly supported.  If he had the largest ever crowd at his inauguration you can bet that he, and his supporters, would be yelling from the rooftops about it.  He did not have larger crowd than President Obama and now he has his press secretary lie and his supporters claim the size of the crowd does not matter.
Pub Draft

Sam N Ella's

At the Bar: The Most Interesting Man in the World
At the Door:  Hugh Hefner
On Stage:  O.A.R., Louis C.K., EDGAR! Special Drinks:  Irish Car Bomb, Martinis On Tap: Lite, Beamish, 3 Floyds Seasonal, Chimay Grand Reserve, Spotted Cow

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #83 on: January 22, 2017, 09:32:36 AM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11463
  • Tommy Points: 1251
This how the independent handles them:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-speech-cia-wall-heroes-john-brennan-ashamed-a7539836.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-inauguration-what-did-he-say-a7539831.html
I think it's incredibly unfair to compare the crowd Obama got and the one Trump did.

Obama being sworn in was a very important historically moment for our country. It was a landmark moment and something a lot of people accross different parties were even proud to see. Of course Trump was never going to see the same turnout.

The fact the media tried to make a story out of it shows the bias. At that point I could care less with how Trump responds because I'm already irritated by the media trying to make a non story a story.
Neither you nor I are in the heads of editors when they determine the newsworthiness of a report.  But... it makes sense to me that news media is both a journalistic endeavor, beholden to journalistic ethics, AND a business, beholden to the sustainance of the organization.  There are undoubtedly possible comflicts of interest inherent in decisions about what to place on page 1 or "above the fold" on a daily basis. 

There is not much doubt in my mind that the NY Times considers the "tweak" value of stories like crowd size in the decision to run the story prominently.  To expect them to do otherwise is foolish.  One of the differentiation points between "legit" news providers and "rags" is whether the headlines and stories designed to tweak/needle a president or to gain the attention of readers are true or not. Breitbart, National Enquirer do not care about truth.  Whether the NY Times does depends on who you talk to. 

Bottom line is that selling newspapers (or getting views) is part of what print media lives for.   Showing the crowd size is both credible evidence of reality and a great way to get under the skin of, and response from, the new president.  To blame the paper for its goading and not the POTUS and his team for responding is one-sided.  When two sides tango, both should be accountable.  If you don't think Trump's easy impulse to react to being goaded is relevant, you are missing something that could be incredibly important as we move ahead. It's a very troubling sign for the future.  I truly hope he starts to display some evidence that he will not be so easily engaged in this trivial crap.  It's one thing when it's the NY Times, it will be another story when it's Kim Jong-un.
Meh. We need a strong leader. I could care less about political correctness so long as Trump delivers.
Remarkably short-sighted response .  I am talking about impulsivity and thin-skin, not political correctness.  The fact that our president is so sensitive, and so readily rolls in the mud with anyone who hurls even a veiled insult in his direction is concerning.  Apparently not to you - but very concerning to me.  What this has to do with PC I haven't the slightest idea - shouting 'PC' should not be your automatic go-to way to marginalize another point of view. It's weak.

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #84 on: January 22, 2017, 09:45:51 AM »

Offline TrueFan

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1791
  • Tommy Points: 79
This how the independent handles them:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-speech-cia-wall-heroes-john-brennan-ashamed-a7539836.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-inauguration-what-did-he-say-a7539831.html
I think it's incredibly unfair to compare the crowd Obama got and the one Trump did.

Obama being sworn in was a very important historically moment for our country. It was a landmark moment and something a lot of people accross different parties were even proud to see. Of course Trump was never going to see the same turnout.

The fact the media tried to make a story out of it shows the bias. At that point I could care less with how Trump responds because I'm already irritated by the media trying to make a non story a story.
Neither you nor I are in the heads of editors when they determine the newsworthiness of a report.  But... it makes sense to me that news media is both a journalistic endeavor, beholden to journalistic ethics, AND a business, beholden to the sustainance of the organization.  There are undoubtedly possible comflicts of interest inherent in decisions about what to place on page 1 or "above the fold" on a daily basis. 

There is not much doubt in my mind that the NY Times considers the "tweak" value of stories like crowd size in the decision to run the story prominently.  To expect them to do otherwise is foolish.  One of the differentiation points between "legit" news providers and "rags" is whether the headlines and stories designed to tweak/needle a president or to gain the attention of readers are true or not. Breitbart, National Enquirer do not care about truth.  Whether the NY Times does depends on who you talk to. 

Bottom line is that selling newspapers (or getting views) is part of what print media lives for.   Showing the crowd size is both credible evidence of reality and a great way to get under the skin of, and response from, the new president.  To blame the paper for its goading and not the POTUS and his team for responding is one-sided.  When two sides tango, both should be accountable.  If you don't think Trump's easy impulse to react to being goaded is relevant, you are missing something that could be incredibly important as we move ahead. It's a very troubling sign for the future.  I truly hope he starts to display some evidence that he will not be so easily engaged in this trivial crap.  It's one thing when it's the NY Times, it will be another story when it's Kim Jong-un.
Meh. We need a strong leader. I could care less about political correctness so long as Trump delivers.
Remarkably short-sighted response .  I am talking about impulsivity and thin-skin, not political correctness.  The fact that our president is so sensitive, and so readily rolls in the mud with anyone who hurls even a veiled insult in his direction is concerning.  Apparently not to you - but very concerning to me.  What this has to do with PC I haven't the slightest idea - shouting 'PC' should not be your automatic go-to way to marginalize another point of view. It's weak.
nope. You are being sensitive along with every other liberal who is over reacting. Are you seriously stuck on this whole story regarding how many people were at the inauguration?

What you see as Trump being sensitive I see as strength. He's not going to let the media undermine him and he's not worried about political correctness or what the liberals will think. Good for him.

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #85 on: January 22, 2017, 09:50:09 AM »

Offline JOMVP

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1378
  • Tommy Points: 100
This how the independent handles them:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-speech-cia-wall-heroes-john-brennan-ashamed-a7539836.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-inauguration-what-did-he-say-a7539831.html
I think it's incredibly unfair to compare the crowd Obama got and the one Trump did.

Obama being sworn in was a very important historically moment for our country. It was a landmark moment and something a lot of people accross different parties were even proud to see. Of course Trump was never going to see the same turnout.

The fact the media tried to make a story out of it shows the bias. At that point I could care less with how Trump responds because I'm already irritated by the media trying to make a non story a story.
Neither you nor I are in the heads of editors when they determine the newsworthiness of a report.  But... it makes sense to me that news media is both a journalistic endeavor, beholden to journalistic ethics, AND a business, beholden to the sustainance of the organization.  There are undoubtedly possible comflicts of interest inherent in decisions about what to place on page 1 or "above the fold" on a daily basis. 

There is not much doubt in my mind that the NY Times considers the "tweak" value of stories like crowd size in the decision to run the story prominently.  To expect them to do otherwise is foolish.  One of the differentiation points between "legit" news providers and "rags" is whether the headlines and stories designed to tweak/needle a president or to gain the attention of readers are true or not. Breitbart, National Enquirer do not care about truth.  Whether the NY Times does depends on who you talk to. 

Bottom line is that selling newspapers (or getting views) is part of what print media lives for.   Showing the crowd size is both credible evidence of reality and a great way to get under the skin of, and response from, the new president.  To blame the paper for its goading and not the POTUS and his team for responding is one-sided.  When two sides tango, both should be accountable.  If you don't think Trump's easy impulse to react to being goaded is relevant, you are missing something that could be incredibly important as we move ahead. It's a very troubling sign for the future.  I truly hope he starts to display some evidence that he will not be so easily engaged in this trivial crap.  It's one thing when it's the NY Times, it will be another story when it's Kim Jong-un.
Meh. We need a strong leader. I could care less about political correctness so long as Trump delivers.

With this one story, he's already proven to be weak. His mind is too fragile to accept anything truthful if it is negatively looked upon on him. The guy had to falsify reports and lie about numbers, then had his press secretary basically chastise the media like a kid who was in trouble for reporting the truth because it made him look bad. And were just talking about crowd size.

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #86 on: January 22, 2017, 09:53:55 AM »

Offline TrueFan

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1791
  • Tommy Points: 79
This how the independent handles them:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-speech-cia-wall-heroes-john-brennan-ashamed-a7539836.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-inauguration-what-did-he-say-a7539831.html
I think it's incredibly unfair to compare the crowd Obama got and the one Trump did.

Obama being sworn in was a very important historically moment for our country. It was a landmark moment and something a lot of people accross different parties were even proud to see. Of course Trump was never going to see the same turnout.

The fact the media tried to make a story out of it shows the bias. At that point I could care less with how Trump responds because I'm already irritated by the media trying to make a non story a story.
Neither you nor I are in the heads of editors when they determine the newsworthiness of a report.  But... it makes sense to me that news media is both a journalistic endeavor, beholden to journalistic ethics, AND a business, beholden to the sustainance of the organization.  There are undoubtedly possible comflicts of interest inherent in decisions about what to place on page 1 or "above the fold" on a daily basis. 

There is not much doubt in my mind that the NY Times considers the "tweak" value of stories like crowd size in the decision to run the story prominently.  To expect them to do otherwise is foolish.  One of the differentiation points between "legit" news providers and "rags" is whether the headlines and stories designed to tweak/needle a president or to gain the attention of readers are true or not. Breitbart, National Enquirer do not care about truth.  Whether the NY Times does depends on who you talk to. 

Bottom line is that selling newspapers (or getting views) is part of what print media lives for.   Showing the crowd size is both credible evidence of reality and a great way to get under the skin of, and response from, the new president.  To blame the paper for its goading and not the POTUS and his team for responding is one-sided.  When two sides tango, both should be accountable.  If you don't think Trump's easy impulse to react to being goaded is relevant, you are missing something that could be incredibly important as we move ahead. It's a very troubling sign for the future.  I truly hope he starts to display some evidence that he will not be so easily engaged in this trivial crap.  It's one thing when it's the NY Times, it will be another story when it's Kim Jong-un.
Meh. We need a strong leader. I could care less about political correctness so long as Trump delivers.

With this one story, he's already proven to be weak. His mind is too fragile to accept anything truthful if it is negatively looked upon on him. The guy had to falsify reports and lie about numbers, then had his press secretary basically chastise the media like a kid who was in trouble for reporting the truth because it made him look bad. And were just talking about crowd size.
eh. I guess you better get use to it then.

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #87 on: January 22, 2017, 10:12:18 AM »

Online hardlyyardley

  • Kyrie Irving
  • Posts: 949
  • Tommy Points: 82
How 'bout those Celtics

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #88 on: January 22, 2017, 11:13:49 AM »

Offline MBunge

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4661
  • Tommy Points: 471


It is bizarre and worrying, not to mention embarrassing. If Trump can't handle minor "slights" like this, then I have a hard time believing he'll be able to handle more serious problems.

I can't envision any other President engaging in this type of grade-school attack. Just pathetic.

The next four years are going to be a long, painful lesson for America, though I doubt most of his supporters will be able to put their egos aside and admit they were wrong.

Except Trump has responded this way his entire life and he's a billionaire and President of the United States.

I'm not a fan of Trump's temperament or his "flexible" attitude toward facts, but I have to admit it is nice to see someone fight back against an all out assault by the status quo.  Some folks may be too young to remember but after George W. Bush lost the popular vote and had an Electoral College win handed to him by the Supreme Court, his Presidential legitimacy was just as questionable as Trump's and there were plenty of people loudly questioning it.  But virtually the entire political and media establishment lined up to defend Bush and refute or flat out ignore the people attacking him.

Trump is not only being denied that support, big chunks of the establishment are joining in on the attacks.  Even if some of his individual responses to that double standard are wrong and contemptible, I think it's a good thing that he's bluntly confronting it in general.

Mike

Re: How Is The Media Going To Handle Outright Lies From DJT & Surrogates?
« Reply #89 on: January 22, 2017, 12:21:00 PM »

Offline Cman

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12257
  • Tommy Points: 352
This how the independent handles them:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-speech-cia-wall-heroes-john-brennan-ashamed-a7539836.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-inauguration-what-did-he-say-a7539831.html
I think it's incredibly unfair to compare the crowd Obama got and the one Trump did.

Obama being sworn in was a very important historically moment for our country. It was a landmark moment and something a lot of people accross different parties were even proud to see. Of course Trump was never going to see the same turnout.

The fact the media tried to make a story out of it shows the bias. At that point I could care less with how Trump responds because I'm already irritated by the media trying to make a non story a story.
Neither you nor I are in the heads of editors when they determine the newsworthiness of a report.  But... it makes sense to me that news media is both a journalistic endeavor, beholden to journalistic ethics, AND a business, beholden to the sustainance of the organization.  There are undoubtedly possible comflicts of interest inherent in decisions about what to place on page 1 or "above the fold" on a daily basis. 

There is not much doubt in my mind that the NY Times considers the "tweak" value of stories like crowd size in the decision to run the story prominently.  To expect them to do otherwise is foolish.  One of the differentiation points between "legit" news providers and "rags" is whether the headlines and stories designed to tweak/needle a president or to gain the attention of readers are true or not. Breitbart, National Enquirer do not care about truth.  Whether the NY Times does depends on who you talk to. 

Bottom line is that selling newspapers (or getting views) is part of what print media lives for.   Showing the crowd size is both credible evidence of reality and a great way to get under the skin of, and response from, the new president.  To blame the paper for its goading and not the POTUS and his team for responding is one-sided.  When two sides tango, both should be accountable.  If you don't think Trump's easy impulse to react to being goaded is relevant, you are missing something that could be incredibly important as we move ahead. It's a very troubling sign for the future.  I truly hope he starts to display some evidence that he will not be so easily engaged in this trivial crap.  It's one thing when it's the NY Times, it will be another story when it's Kim Jong-un.
Meh. We need a strong leader. I could care less about political correctness so long as Trump delivers.

With this one story, he's already proven to be weak. His mind is too fragile to accept anything truthful if it is negatively looked upon on him. The guy had to falsify reports and lie about numbers, then had his press secretary basically chastise the media like a kid who was in trouble for reporting the truth because it made him look bad. And were just talking about crowd size.

This is my take as well. If this is how Trump responds to the little stuff, then it suggests he is going to really struggle with the big stuff.

Celtics fan for life.