Trump, the 'say anything' president, closes in on 10,000 false statements

The Washington Post is about to come out with an updated count of President Trump's false and misleading statements since Inauguration Day. And it is expected to show that Trump has surpassed the 10,000 mark. Whatever the opposite of popping champagne is, do that, I guess?

The Post's fact-checker-in-chief, Glenn Kessler, was still crunching the numbers when I spoke with him on Sunday. But he said an updated total will be out on Monday morning. My impression is that Trump's rage-filled reaction to the Mueller report has only increased his volume of inaccuracies...

→ Data point: Kessler said "we counted 45 misstatements or falsehoods in his interview with Sean Hannity" the other day...

Leading versus misleading

I return to this point about the president's deceptions quite often — and that's because I believe the lying often times is THE story. Not what he said, but why he chose to mislead instead of lead.

Kessler's team has been checking every one of Trump's statements since 1/20/2017, and they've noticed a rapid rise in falsehoods: "He passed the 5,000 mark in September, so it's only seven months ago." This is one of the reasons why, on "Reliable Sources," I called Trump the "say anything" president — whether it's an outlandish claim, a conspiracy theory, or a contradiction of his own comments, he's willing to say anything to keep the show going...

To believe Trump, you have to disbelieve the press...

Let's be real: Untold millions of people won't believe The Post's research. Some will attack the paper for doing the work at all.

I'm always interested when reporters ask Trump rallygoers about their media habits. The latest contribution to this canon is from Jake Malooley, who spoke with fans at Saturday night's rally in Wisconsin. "Trump has spawned a new generation of media critic/cynic," Malooley wrote for Esquire. He says the "fake news" refrain is "one of the crucial ties that bind his most fervent supporters." Read all about it here...

We led Sunday's "Reliable" with the president's wildly false claim that "mothers and doctors have the option to 'execute' babies." He has brought up this infanticide talking point before, but he was even more explicit about it at Saturday's rally. It barely generated news coverage on Sunday morning. Matt Fuller of HuffPost tweeted that he was "watching local cable news," and there was "no mention of the massive lies he told about killing babies or his sanctuary city plan. This isn't responsible coverage."

WEEKEND PLANNER

Monday: The week-long Digital Content Newfronts kick off in NYC...

Monday: The Tribeca Film Festival continues...

Monday: Spotify (SPOT) earnings before the bell, Alphabet (GOOG) results after...

Tuesday: The Facebook Developer Conference runs through Wednesday. Follow live coverage on CNN Business...

Tuesday after the bell: Apple (AAPL) earnings...

Wednesday: Netflix starts streaming "Knock Down the House..."

Wednesday: A.G. Bill Barr is slated to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee... And then a House committee on Thursday, but it's complicated...

Thursday: Discovery earnings before the bell, CBS results after...

Thursday: I'll be hosting the Canadian Journalism Foundation's second annual World News Day in Toronto...

NYT staffers alarmed by anti-Semitic cartoon

NYT staffers are alarmed and dismayed by this anti-Semitic cartoon AND by the paper's initial response.

It started on Thursday when print editions of the international edition of The New York Times ran an anti-Semitic cartoon depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a dog on a leash held by a blind POTUS. Most US staffers knew nothing about it until they read about this editor's note on Saturday. The note admitted that the cartoon was an "error in judgment," but didn't go into any detail about what went wrong. Some news outlets inaccurately called the note an "apology," which it wasn't, which led people to wonder why the NYT hadn't actually apologized.

Jake Tapper commented on Sunday morning that the cartoon "could just have easily appeared in ISIS or neo-Nazi propaganda."

Per three plugged-in sources at the NYT, staffers were alarmed to see the image in the first place — and dismayed that the initial response was so feeble. They told me that they wanted a more detailed explanation...

Awaiting more info...

After a barrage of criticism, The Times issued a statement on Sunday afternoon saying "we are deeply sorry" for the cartoon, and "we are committed to making sure nothing like this happens again."

The NYT said the decision to run the syndicated cartoon was made by a single editor working without adequate oversight. "The matter remains under review, and we are evaluating our internal processes and training," the statement said. "We anticipate significant changes."

The paper is out with its own news story about the situation... And Bret Stephens, one of the paper's op-ed columnists, has a clear-eyed column titled "A Despicable Cartoon in The Times."

Stephens said he is certain that the Times is not guilty of institutional anti-Semitism, but he said the cartoon was a sign of the Times' ongoing criticism of Zionism and the Israeli government. Here is his column... And our news story...

Two crimes, linked by state and by hate

In northern California, near San Jose, a man plowed his car into a group of people because he thought some of them were Muslims. Eight were injured. Police did not identify it as a hate crime until Friday, three days after the attack, so it received relatively scant news coverage.

In southern California, near San Diego, a man with a gun opened fire at a synagogue — killing one congregant and injuring three others. The suspect apparently published an open letter detailing his disdain for Jews and his admiration for past killings.

On "Reliable Sources," I described the suspect's activity on the website 8chan, where he read posts from likeminded individuals before posting a link to his Facebook page and inviting them to watch his livestream. "What I've learned here is priceless," the person wrote. The first user who replied told him to "get the high score," i.e., kill lots of people. This has all the hallmarks of online radicalization...

→ There is no evidence that the suspect actually went live on FB...

→ As Amanda Carpenter said in this segment, "we know people are being radicalized on the internet." True. But what are the answers? Karen Finney wondered aloud about some form of commission...

Rabbi Goldstein's inspiring words

During a commercial break in Sunday's show, I found out that Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein was able to join us by phone from the hospital. He'd been in surgery for the gunshot wounds to his hand.

"Terror will not win," he said after I thanked him for calling in. "As Americans, we can't and won't cower in the face of senseless hate of what's called anti-Semitism."

Losing his index finger will be "a scar forever," he said. "But that scar is going to remind me how vulnerable we are, but yet how HEROIC each one of us can be to stand up and fight against terror."

Goldstein said he hopes to see synagogues full of congregants in the coming days and weeks and months. "A little bit of light pushes away a lot of darkness. We need a lot of light now," he said...

FOR THE RECORD, PART ONE

-- Charlie Warzel tweeted his latest: "The internet has imprinted itself on modern hate crimes, giving its most unstable residents a theater for unspeakable acts — and an amplification system for an ideology of white supremacy..." (NYT)

EYE ON 2020

-- Joe Biden's next big TV interview is on "GMA" Tuesday morning, joined by his wife Jill...

-- Chris Cillizza's newsletter notes that "No one" is the frontrunner right now. Post-ABC pollsters asked people to name their favorite candidate, and "a majority — 54% — couldn't (or didn't) offer any names..."

-- Jack Shafer's latest: "If you're reading this, you're probably running for president..."

QUOTE OF THE DAY

BuzzFeed News EIC Ben Smith says new movements, not the old media, are driving politics right now:

"Politics is the media business, and increasingly the media-criticism business. But spare a thought for the possibility that, as you judge the media's coverage of the Democratic Primary, that we have a lot less to do with the outcome than we used to. The power that we used to wield has been handed over to the fandoms."

Three stories about Fox...

1. Phone a friend

Trump called into Maria Bartiromo's show for a pre-taped phoner on Sunday morning...

2. Punish a foe

Fox declined to comment on the president's latest broadside at two of its news side broadcasters, Shep Smith and Judge Andrew Napolitano. On "Reliable," David Zurawik said this is Trump's "oldest trick: Reward those who kiss up to you... and punish like hell anyone who dares to criticize you..."

3. Phone another friend

This Post story is a must-read about Lou Dobbs. Born just nine months apart, Trump and Dobbs "share a penchant for schoolyard-style name-calling, grumbling about enemies seen and unseen, an apocalyptic view of illegal immigration and a deep embrace of hair-color shades not found in the natural world."

See why I said it's a must-read? Manuel Roig-Franzia and Robert Costahave so much new detail about Dobbs' two jobs: Fire-breather on Fox Business, informal White House adviser on immigration and other issues. When Costa asked to speak with Trump about Dobbs, Trump picked up the phone for an interview. Read!

FOR THE RECORD, PART TWO

-- "The Santa Clarita Diet," a romantic comedy starring Drew Barrymore as a flesh-eating zombie, is the latest Netflix series to get the ax," Jay Croft writes... (CNN)

-- A fun read: Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro "shared a few small details about their forthcoming film, 'The Irishman,' as part of a wide-ranging discussion Sunday at the Beacon Theater, where audience members were surprised to learn that Leonardo DiCaprio was in their midst..." (NYT)

-- On Monday morning, expect the NFL to report big #'s from the NFL Draft, showing the event was the highest-rated, most-watched, and most-attended of its kind to date...

Let's block ads! (Why?)