portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting united states

government | media criticism

Trump, spokesman slam U.S. media over inaugural crowd coverage

Washington city authorities do not provide official crowd counts but TV footage clearly showed the gathering did not stretch all the way to the Washington Monument as Trump asserted
WASHINGTON DC, USA - Donald Trump and his chief spokesman launched an unprecedented assault on the media Saturday, January 21, for a US president's first full day in office, accusing reporters of downplaying the turnout at his inauguration.

Trump, visiting the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in nearby Langley, Virginia, insisted against all evidence that he drew 1.5 million people to his Friday (January 20) swearing-in ceremony.

"I made a speech. I looked out, the field was, it looked like a million, MILLION AND A HALF people," he told CIA staff.

"They showed a field where there were practically nobody standing there. And they said, Donald Trump did not draw well," he added.

Trump said one network estimated turnout at 250,000.

"Now, that's not bad. But it's a lie," Trump said. He falsely claimed there were people stretching from the steps of the Capitol, where he spoke, along 20 blocks back to the Washington Monument.

"SO WE CAUGHT THEM and we caught them in a beauty and I THINK THEY ARE GOING TO PAY A BIG PRICE," said Trump.

WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY SEAN SPICER doubled down on the accusation, using his first press conference in the White House briefing room to BLAST JOURNALISTS SEATED BEFORE HIM FOR "DELIBERATELY FALSE REPORTING" on crowd size.

"THIS WAS THE LARGEST AUDIENCE TO EVER WITNESS AN INAUGURATION, PERIOD!" Spicer said, his loud and abrasive tone catching nearly everyone in the room off guard.

"These attempts to lessen the enthusiasm of the inauguration are shameful and wrong."


An estimated 1.8 million people flooded the National Mall area in 2009 when Barack Obama was first sworn in as president, according to federal and local agencies at the time.

Washington authorities reportedly predicted 800,000 to 900,000 would attend Trump's inauguration Friday, about half of the 2009 crowd.


Spicer appeared eager to lay down the new law with the press, whom his boss repeatedly criticized on the campaign trail and EVEN BRANDED MAINSTREAM MEDIA OUTLETS "FAKE NEWS".

The intensity of Spicer's delivery suggested he and Trump were furious at the coverage of the inauguration, which many outlets said fell well short of Obama's 2009 inaugural in terms of crowd size.

A comparison of aerial photos taken on January 20, 2009 and Friday appear to bear that out.

Washington city authorities do not provide official crowd counts but TV footage clearly showed the gathering did not stretch all the way to the Washington Monument as Trump asserted.

Trump's latest attack on news organizations came during a rambling aside as he visited CIA headquarters on a fence-mending mission after his public rejection of the assessment by US intelligence agencies that Russia meddled to try to help him win the November election.

Trump, standing in front of a spot sacred to the CIA - a wall with stars honoring employees killed while serving the country - proclaimed he is fully behind the spy agency.

He eventually returned to the issue of media coverage of his inauguration and said the National Mall, divided up into sections for Friday's ceremony, was uniformly crammed with people.

"You saw that. Packed. I get up this morning, I turn on one of the networks, and they show an empty field. I'm like, wait a minute," he said.

The outrage over crowd size came on a day that as many as two million people flooded into streets of cities across the United States in peaceful but passionate women-led protests against the new commander-in-chief.

At the main "Women's March on Washington," organizers put the projected turnout at half a million.

Women's March - Washington DC 22.Jan.2017 03:56


Women's March - Washington DC

But did they count the number of BUSES? 22.Jan.2017 08:36

Bubble Boy

Perhaps most Trump supporters were content to watch his inauguration on TV (est. 31 million viewers -  link to www.legitgov.org)
instead of enduring another "I have to pee!" protest speech by Alec Baldwin, even if their employers PAID to bus them in! (see  link to www.legitgov.org)

Low turnout election. 22.Jan.2017 11:12

Lloyd dadapop.com

My dear Mr. President, I don't believe the hype that you are some kind of nazi but you did use dog whistle politics to win in a low turnout election. Which means you don't have the wind of the majority of Americans at your back. We are all hoping you will do a good job for all Americans. However, when your press secretary throws a hissyfit on national television complaining about factual information being factual information. It does not hearten me that you would allow your goat to be gotten so easily now that you are president. The demographics are the demographics and 64 percent of Americans want progressive policies put in place (Pew Research). If you do not want your presidency to be ground up and impeached I suggest you get your marketing guys to sit down with us political demographers and take a hard look at the numbers. Ratcheting down international tensions will be worth it just by itself but the American public won't stand for domestic turmoil and constant protests to protect America's social safety net. You simply must decide, are you a Republican or are you an American President.  https://sputniknews.com/us/201701221049879128-trump-realpolitik-forecast/

"Alternative facts are untruths..." 22.Jan.2017 15:35


Kellyanne Conway doubles down on the lies -

 link to heavy.com

"Alternative facts are untruths..." NAILED IT! 22.Jan.2017 17:19


Whereas all previous regimes were based on professional liars and story-tellers, the Trump regime appears to do away with any concept of pretense, and just tell bold-faced LIES to the point of mental delusion. Even compared to Bush, this shit seems surreal. A Frankenstein's monster borne from the Tea Party (remember them?) and traditional CONservative dogmatism.

Trump doesn't give a **** about corporate media (Oct 2016) 22.Jan.2017 18:09


(+ see my first on thread post  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2017/01/434151.shtml#449868 )

newswire article reporting [ BTW, this article is a Repost of corporate media, not "Reporting" ]
government | media criticism

Lloyd dadapop.com wrote [QUOTE]:
"64 percent of Americans want progressive policies put in place (Pew Research)"

That's nice Lloyd, but (did you ever think about) how exactly do 'progressive' or what ever policies get "put in place"?
Answer the Government does it. by Enforcing laws, with the barrel of a gun to your head.
Pay Your Taxes, Or Else (et cetera)

I come from the p.o.v. that _no more_ policies should be "put in place", as there are imho already too many "in place". Make it stop.

RE: Trump.

He don't give a flying ***K about corporate mass media,
witness the October 2016
( back when "no one was sure" he'd win / beat Hillary who 'had it in the tank' at that time according to corporate media + pundits, **AND** his _own party_ was _still_ trying to torpedo his candidacy )
speech excerpt concerning Corporate Media which PDX IMC in their infinite wisdom determined was compost:

Trump Calls Out 'Corporate Media' West Palm Beach, Florida Live Speech 10/13/2016

from Trump/Pence rally at South Florida Fair Expo Center in West Palm Beach, Florida on October 13th 2016.

starts around 9:00 into speech

"... the most powerful weapon deployed by the Clintons is the corporate media 'the press'. Let's be clear on one thing: the corporate media in our country is no longer involved in journalism. They're a political special interest, no different than any lobbyist or other financial entity, with a total political agenda; and the agenda is not for you [points to audience], it's for themselves.

Lier 24.Jan.2017 02:53


Corporate media or not, the fact is that Trump's Press Secretary LIED to the American people on his first day in office.

"Corporate media or not" / "Lier" so corporate media tells the truth? 24.Jan.2017 08:58


from 1st post on thread  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2017/01/434151.shtml#449868

Lol, 4 years of this tit for tat really?

who cares how many people showed up for _any_ president's inauguration - you're being Trolled by Trump on day 1.

( the reason Trump himself 'cares' is because, throughout his presidential campaign and in particular the last several months of it, the corporate media massively under-reported attendance at his campaign rallies... Don't take my word for it, go look at the corporate media coverage and portrayal of attendance at Trump rallies throughout year 2016. While all that time completely LYING about 'Hillary is up by 8 points' etc. -- which continued All The Way up to election night, until state-by-state electoral vote totals began coming in that is -- and her 2016 campaign rallies' attendance were unable to fill up even half of a rural high school gymnasium. So for him personally, the inauguration coverage by corp media was a continuation of the 100% lies about attendance at DT presidential campaign rallies.

Corporate media told the "truth" about candidate Hillary all during 2016? About her level of popular support in polls? About the DNC party machinations to get rid of Bernie who had greater rank-and-file popularity among Democrat voters? Oh wait, the last one which resulted in firing of Deb Wasserman Schultz was due to WikiLeaks, not corp media... )

Trump's Press Secretary LIED to the American people on his first day in office. 25.Jan.2017 00:49


Stop muddling the issue. The focus is that the Trump regime is lying to the American people on day one, period.

Alternative fact my ass.

apples and avocados 25.Jan.2017 08:10


More people watched Trump than Obama, that is not disputed. (worldwide, cell phones, streaming, internet, TV, etc.)

What is disputed is at what time of day those photos were taken. Clearly there way more people in the Mall during Trump's speech than the Corporate Media's aerial photo they claim was taken during the same time period. That is the fake news!

Lier.. ? You mean Liar? 25.Jan.2017 08:12


No, He didn't lie. He is not a Liar. He said more people viewed the inauguration. (streaming, cell phones, TV, worldwide, etc.)

That is not disputed. Just those bogus photos. Look at the photo of Trump giving the speech. You can tell that one wasn't taken 3 hours prior to the event.

RE: quantity of human beings on Capitol Mall 2017 vs 2009 25.Jan.2017 14:30


It wouldn't surprise me that, perhaps ? there were 100K to 200K "more" people, that actually turned out on the Capitol Mall for Obama's inauguration than did for Trump's. (Assuming there was a 'scientific' or reliable way to count individual persons for the 2 events)

Logical in fact because remember, that the election of Barack Obama was and probably will remain for many decades if not centuries a singular event. A black U.S. president that is. So that sole 'once in a lifetime' aspect of his election and presidency its uniqueness surely contributed to the massive turnout.

But as noted above  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2017/01/434151.shtml#449934
regular turnout at Trump's 2016 presidential campaign rallies were fully neglected, ignored or _faked_ in coverage by corporate mass media.
That is the only reason the 2017 inaugural turnout corporate media scam became a 'personal issue' for him (even during those last several weeks, in which he himself expressed doubts at the rallies that he could actually win the election).

and as also noted, despite the Mall inauguration event attendance numbers 2017 vs 2009, the fact remains that Trump's inauguration was by far the greatest number viewed worldwide via all forms of media.
Therefore any sort of "underplaying" by corporate mass media of the Capitol Mall attendance numbers is additionally ludicrous.

To the Alternative press secretary... 26.Jan.2017 04:09


"THIS WAS THE LARGEST AUDIENCE TO EVER WITNESS AN INAUGURATION, PERIOD!" Spicer said, his loud and abrasive tone catching nearly everyone in the room off guard.

When pressed during the interview with Chuck Todd to explain why Spicer "utter[ed] a provable falsehood", Kellyane Conway (Counselor to the President) said "Don't be so overly dramatic about it, Chuck. You're saying it's a falsehood, and [... ] our press secretary, Sean Spicer, gave alternative facts to that." Todd responded by saying "Alternative facts are not facts. They are falsehoods."

Remember Sean Spicer press con was about the photos of Obama inauguration and Trump inauguration (both were taken noon time) not about online or TV audience.

The women march the following day was much bigger than Trump inauguration too.

Stop being a spokesperson of Mr Trump he already has a press secretary who feed us alternative facts. Ahh...your an echo.

RE: " women march following day much bigger than Trump inauguration " 26.Jan.2017 14:06


Yeah I'm not so sure about that one.

anyway "significance" (as though it mattered) of entire dust-up over "how many were there" ..... ---->  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2017/01/434151.shtml#449969

Stop being a spokesperson of corporate mass media. 26.Jan.2017 14:11


( all this falderal is nothing more than Trump v corporate mass media, and you're choosing sides? Lol... )

Dangerous Idiots: How The Liberal Media Elite Failed Working-Class Americans 26.Jan.2017 15:57

Sarah Smarsh

newswire article | economic justice | media criticism | 14.Oct.2016 20:53

Trump supporters are not the caricatures journalists depict - and native Kansan Sarah Smarsh sets out to correct what newsrooms get wrong

Truth based on facts 27.Jan.2017 18:22


Stop muddling the issue. The issue is not Trump vs corporate media. The issue is that Trump, Spicer and Conway lied to the American people on their first day in office. No amount of "alternative facts" can change that.

"The issue is not Trump vs corporate media" = GASLIGHTING. 28.Jan.2017 03:31


"Trump, Spicer and Conway lied to the American people on their first day in office"

So what?

Every word that comes out of Trump's mouth/head is 100% lies.

Who gives a **** what he or any other politician _SAYS_?

Actions, and accomplishments/results, speak far louder than words.

what everyone wants to know-see, at this time (and the next 6 months to 1 year) is if Trump can deliver on all the "lies" he's 'promised'.

For example: _can_ he "build the wall". _can_ he "bring back the jobs". and so on
( And these will take more than just the past week's Exec Orders - it takes Congress to approve funds, and line-item budgets, to actually implement these kinds of gigantic endeavors )

That will be the test. For not only Trump's own supporters, to whom he's promised quite a lot, but also his detractors.

Nothing at all otherwise even matters. (Not the tweets or other tit-for-tat screeching on the part of corp media talking heads or outraged Democrats)

Everything else is absolutely Trump vs. corporate media.  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2017/01/434189.shtml

Why would someone come HERE, to Indymedia, and deny that Trump is not at odds with corporate mass media in 2016-2017 when the campaign itself demonstrated that so clearly? Corporate media 100% predicting Hillary Clinton victory. Don't bother to vote because polls show Hillary 8 points ahead. Et cetera.
Hillary Clinton is (the only) sane (choice) / Trump is insane.
Trump grabs pussy.
Trump will drop out any day now.
Trump is a Nazi.
Trump's a racist and so are all of his supporters.
Trump has destroyed the lead he had at the time of July convention Party nomination.
Trump's campaign is about to implode.
^^ This is ALL WE HEARD for the nine months leading up to November 2016. Why would you take my word for it - look at the news stories/internet coverage of Corporate Mass Media for that period.

Lol, and therefore suddenly in late January 2017 what Spicer said about the inaugural crowd is a "bad omen" ?! ROFL

Not to mention all of Trump's public speaking references (during his own press conferences / campaign events / speeches) which continue right to this very moment, pointing out the :

"Dishonest Media / Corporate Press"
( use the following internet search terms: YouTube Trump dishonest media )

it's totally 100% them-vs-him.

What about the Democrat Party, Sanders, and Russian conspiracies? 28.Jan.2017 04:04


speaking of "lies" and what people en masse are willing to 'believe' as spoon fed to them ....

after all of the WikiLeaks exposures of the Democrats, and firing of head of DNC Deb Wasserman Schultz, people still switched their vote from Sanders to Hillary by the millions?

What magnitude of lies, denial, and brainwashing does _THAT_ involve?

RE: Russia - the Clintons, with their AS-REPORTED-BY-THE-NEW-YORK-TIMES uranium machinations (which John Podesta himself even had an investment hand in) have a far more direct and proven business and financial connection with Russia.

Democratic Party Attorneys Admit DNC Is Corrupt

Suddenly (8 Days Left In Campaign) HC Democrats Believe In Russian Conspiracies

Recognition Of 2016: Nixon-Level Corruption In DNC Means It's Time to Build A New Party

Harvey Weinstein Urged Clinton Campaign to Silence Sanders's Black Lives Matter Message

President Bill Clinton on Illegal Aliens, SOTU Address 1995

1960s Icon Of Civil Rights Leads House Democrats In 'Sit Down' To Have Them Taken Away

House Democrats Sing Civil Rights Anthem In Support Of Taking Away Our Civil Rights

The Progressive Movement Is A PR Front For Rich Democrats

The Democrats Do Their Job, Again

How The Democrats Lost Touch On Trade

Democrat Party: Alliance of Wealthy Whites + Low Income Ethnic Minorities

Truth doesn't matter? 28.Jan.2017 14:59


So you don't give a damn if the highest official of the land lies to you?
So you are now admitting Trump, Spicer and Conway lied?
Actually, it really doesn't matter if you admit or not. The photos say it all.
Conway's explanation (alternative facts) say it all too.

RE: " . " 28.Jan.2017 14:59 28.Jan.2017 17:50


"So you don't give a damn if the highest official of the land lies to you?"


(Care even less about such an inconsequential topic such as " Our Women'sWTFBBQ March Had More Attendance Than Yr Inauguation, NYaH Nanna NAA Na! "...)

Proof is in the actions. Obama, Bush, Clinton(s) = 100% LIARS.

Do I care?


What I "care" about in relation to political officials ( WHO DON'T 'run the country' IN REALITY, btw ) is their _record_ of actions, policies.

In that way, I can make gradational 'opinions' about Obama being relatively "worse" / 'better' than Bush, etc.

"So you are now admitting Trump, Spicer and Conway lied?"

I don't care what Trump, Spicer or Conway

_________________________________________________ SAY . _________________________________________________


Lol, you expect them to tell the "truth"? ROFL

Did Obama tell poor little "." the 'truth'? How about the Democrat National Committee in July 2016, they told the 'truth' (about Sanders)?
Corporate mass media told the 'truth' about Trump being 5 to 7 points behind Hillary until ELECTION NIGHT Nov 8 2016 (when they suddenly began to choke)?

of ^ those people / entities told poor little "." the TWOOTH ?

( I hear what Trump et al. say, sure. Not that I believe even one bit. But yeah, of course I hear it.
What they SAY though, and what Trump admin. actually DOES / ends up happening, are 2 completely different things. )

What I care about (in 6 months to a year from now)

is how the Federal government will be impacting my personal life as a U.S. citizen.
( e.g. USA Patriot, IRS, surveillance, federal bureaucracy etc. )

That will be the 'measure' of 'evaluating' Trump.

The foreign wars (in some degree or another) will continue, irrespective of Trump or his cabinet appointments, that is assured as they are Plutocrat Corporate wars. Those will continue long after Trump has left this planet
(or until full collapse of U.S.A. and-or western 'civilization' which may be on the way sooner than we think, most likely via financial monetary-system-hoax implosion....)

"Actually, it really doesn't matter if you admit or not. The photos say it all."

See previous comments and references for people who might give a ^%&K about
" how many people attended U.S. Capitol Mall " over a weekend. Or, "the photos"... (Lol!) "b-but - The _photos_ , ma-aan!"


even less people care, about a "majority popular vote" of IDIOTs so brainwashed to cast it for the living Understudy of HENRY KISSINGER himself,
and proven acolyte of Arkansas' role in the 1980s Iran-Contra traitor dealings, as well as coverup queen for her husband's marital infidelities FOR THREE DECADES! while governor and U.S. president. Why would ANYONE "care" about 2 million more votes being cast for _that_ person, than for Trump?

" alternative facts "

New buzzword for the butthurt?
You think anyone cares? Lol'

This administration will be making policy, and implementing it.

Your 'job' (lol, we know you don't even have one) is to oppose the policies via legal or citizen resistance measures. Organize accordingly or SHUT THE **** UP. i.e. put up or SHUT UP.

You got the guts, or balls for that?

Robert Reich (on CNN): Berkeley Protesters Were 'Right Wing' 05.Feb.2017 02:21



On CNN Thursday [February 2nd], UC Berkeley professor and former Democratic Secretary of Labor CNN guest Robert Reich suggested the anti-Trump riots on campus were actually a right-wing plot to delegitimize liberals.

"I was there for part of last night, and I know what I saw and those people were not Berkeley students," Reich said. "Those people were outside agitators. I have never seen them before."

"There's rumors that they actually were right-wingers. They were a part of a kind of group that was organized and ready to create the kind of tumult and danger you saw that forced the police to cancel the event," Reich insisted. "So Donald Trump, when he says Berkeley doesn't respect free speech rights, that's a complete distortion of the truth."

"You think it's a strategy by [Milo Yiannopoulos] or right-wingers?" asked host Don Lemon.

"I wouldn't bet against it," Reich said. "I saw these people. They all looked very- almost paramilitary. They were not from the campus. I don't want to say factually, but I've heard there was some relationship here between these people and the right-wing movement that is affiliated with Breitbart News."