New York Times doesn’t appear to require actual documented proof anymore when it comes to reporting on Trump

The Old Gray Lady is sure getting a lot older these days, especially for millions of Americans who are simply turning off the news or tuning it out because the media’s irrational hatred of President Donald J. Trump has completely warped whatever objectivity — and credibility — it had left.

This is especially true of The New York Times, whose editors have obviously decided that reporters no longer need actual documented proof of claims made in their stories about Trump; that the spoken word by “officials,” who shall always be nameless, is good enough.

Twice now in less than a week the Times has run pieces based on information that was read to their reporters from someone who is either serial-leaking highly sensitive information out of Trump’s White House, or who is serving as a tool of the Deep State which continues to try to push Trump out of the Oval Office. Not once in either of those cases did the Times actually see the document purporting to support what was being read to reporters, presumably over the phone.

The first story dealt with allegations that Trump asked then-FBI Director James Comey to drop the bureau’s investigation into the president’s first national security advisor, Michael Flynn. We’re being told that what Trump allegedly asked was detailed in a memo Comey wrote following the meeting; there is no other context, and no one other than Comey and some “associates” of his, has actually seen said memo, if it even exists:

Mr. Comey shared the existence of the memo with senior F.B.I. officials and close associates. The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey’s associates read parts of it to a Times reporter.

The second story was published Friday, as Trump left the country on a multi-day tour that takes him to Saudi Arabia, Israel and Europe. It dealt with allegations that he told Russian diplomats he met last week in the Oval Office that Comey was a “nut job” who was “crazy” and putting “great pressure” on him “because of Russia.” That, too was read to Times reporters:

“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

You know, once upon a time if a reporter had filed a story — even at the Times — without documentation to back up claims when said documentation apparently existed, he or she would likely face a reprimand and/or unemployment. The Times publishing these kinds of allegations based only on what someone was reading to its reporters is just despicable.

And wholly dishonest.

For the second story, to be fair, White House spokesman Sean Spicer did not deny the words that were read to reporters, just the context in which the reporters portrayed what was read to them.

“By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia’s actions, James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia,” Spicer said. “The investigation would have always continued, and obviously, the termination of Comey would not have ended it. Once again, the real story is that our national security has been undermined by the leaking of private and highly classified conversations.” (Related: Wait A Sec… You Mean James Comey Wrote A Memo To HIMSELF, Then “Leaked” It To The NYT?)

Yet another “government official” quoted by the Times said the words Trump chose were part of negotiating with the Russian officials — Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov and Russian Ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak:

The idea, the official suggested, was to create a sense of obligation with Russian officials and to coax concessions out of Mr. Lavrov — on Syria, Ukraine and other issues — by saying that Russian meddling in last year’s election had created enormous political problems for Mr. Trump.

Indeed, the leaks are the problem. How are Americans supposed to believe such accounts when the outlets reporting them have been so wrong so many times before? And as for reading documents to reporters, anyone can make up the contents of a “memo” or “transcript” and call it valid and real, even when it’s not. Plus, in the case of Trump’s meeting with the Russian officials, there were no American officials present other than National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and a lower-ranking national security aide.

So where did these accounts come from? Who actually said what? And why are Americans just supposed to blindly believe these accounts when it’s obvious the Establishment press is gunning for Trump?

Welcome to establishment journalism in the Age of Trump, when innuendo and claims phoned in now pass as responsible reporting.

Stay better informed at and

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for and, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources include:

comments powered by Disqus