Analysis: The failing @nytimes reporters don't even call us anymore, t...

9y ago Oct 15, 2016 at 10:49 PM

The failing @nytimes reporters don't even call us anymore, they just write whatever they want to write, making up sources along the way!

0:00 0:00

AI Analysis

Machine-generated analysis of the post above on 2026-03-10. Not written by the author of the post.

Danger Level

None

Narcissistic State

Vulnerable

Authorship

Self-Written

Intensity

65%

Post constitutes a canonical narcissistic injury response to the NYT's publication of corroborated sexual assault allegations. Rather than engaging the allegations' substance, Trump executes a two-pronged defense: content denial (contemporaneous post: "Nothing ever happened") plus channel delegitimization (this post). The "failing @nytimes" brand-label functions as preemptive devaluation — disqualifying the epistemic source before the audience engages its content. The phrase "making up sources along the way" is the operative gaslighting claim: it reframes investigative reporting using named sources as active fabrication. Paranoid features are elevated; projection is plausible. The vulnerable narcissistic register briefly surfaces in "don't even call us anymore" — a detail that reads as genuine wounded indignation rather than strategic framing, and thus a more psychologically authentic moment than the surrounding attack posture. Rhetorical architecture is efficient: economic failure → procedural abandonment → epistemic accusation. The goal is audience inoculation against future NYT reporting, consistent with RAND Firehose doctrine applied at retail scale. No cognitive markers of concern. Authorship assessed as likely authentic Trump (local time ~18:49 EDT, emotional reactivity, informal register). Fact-check: the "fabricating sources" claim is mostly false; NYT followed standard editorial protocols. Danger level: none. This post is clinically significant not for extremity but for its representative clarity — it illustrates the narcissistic injury → media delegitimization pipeline in near-textbook form.

Authorship Analysis

Self-Written

Indicators:

Emotional, reactive content responding to acute narcissistic injury (NYT sexual assault reporting)
Informal, stream-of-consciousness phrasing ('making up sources along the way!')
Exclamation mark and accusatory tone consistent with authentic Trump emotional register
The phrase 'don't even call us anymore' is personal grievance language, not aide-drafted event copy
UTC 22:49 = approximately 18:49 EDT (campaign trail in Maine/NH, possibly en route back to NYC) — early evening is borderline but the emotional context of acute allegations strongly favors authentic authorship

Psychological Profile

▶ State

Vulnerable State

Trigger: Narcissistic Injury — Exposure (The New York Times)

Rage: Intensity 68% targeting The New York Times / accusatory press coverage of sexual assault allegations

Proportionality

15%

Sentiment

-0.82

▶ Clinical

Malignant Narcissism:

Narcissistic

82%

Antisocial

45%

Paranoid

72%

Sadism

18%

Defense Mechanisms:

denialdistortionprojectiondevaluation

Cognitive Complexity:

Complexity

38%

Parasocial Techniques:

Positions himself as victim of corrupt institution, inviting audience identificationUses 'us' (not 'me') — signals collective identity with supporters against shared enemyImplicit promise: 'I am telling you the truth; they are lying to you'

Danger Assessment

None

Gaslighting Detected:

Characterizes sourced, corroborated journalism as fabrication ('making up sources along the way')
Attacks the epistemic channel (NYT credibility) rather than specific factual claims, denying audience the ability to evaluate evidence
Implied claim that procedural journalistic norms have been abandoned ('don't even call us anymore') without evidence

Reality Distortions:

NYT described as 'failing' — false economic characterization deployed as credibility attack
'Making up sources along the way' — reframes documented editorial practice as active fabrication
Implies systematic media conspiracy rather than adversarial but legitimate journalistic coverage

Fact Checks (3)

"The New York Times is 'failing'"

Mostly False

In 2016, the NYT faced commercial headwinds common to print media but was expanding digital subscriptions and was financially solvent. The characterization is a rhetorical brand deployed to damage credibility, not an accurate financial description.

"NYT reporters 'don't even call us anymore'"

Unverifiable

No public record confirms or refutes whether the specific reporters who published the sexual assault allegations sought comment from the Trump campaign. Standard editorial practice requires offering subjects a chance to respond.

"NYT reporters are 'making up sources along the way'"

Mostly False

The NYT's sexual assault reporting used multiple named and on-record sources who went public with their identities. No evidence of source fabrication was ever established. The reporting followed documented editorial standards.

Receipts

No contradictions with other posts detected yet.

Psychological Analysis: x_787425145489072128

Post: "The failing @nytimes reporters don't even call us anymore, they just write whatever they want to write, making up sources along the way!" Date: October 15, 2016 | Subject age: 70

Situational Context

This post was published during one of the most acute threat periods of Trump's 2016 campaign: the Access Hollywood tape fallout (October 7), multiple women's sexual assault allegations published in the NYT and elsewhere, mass Republican defections including Paul Ryan and John McCain, and Michelle Obama's high-impact New Hampshire speech. The NYT was a primary publication of the assault allegations. This is not incidental media criticism; it is a defensive response to existential political threat.

Level 1: Dispositional Traits

The post foregrounds low agreeableness (combative, mistrustful, antagonistic), high extraversion-assertiveness (bold public accusation without qualification), and high neuroticism–angry hostility (reactive grievance). The absence of any deliberative hedging reflects low conscientiousness in the deliberation facet. The phrase "don't even call us anymore" introduces a briefly vulnerable register — a moment of genuine indignation breaking through the attacking posture — which is psychologically informative.

Level 2: Characteristic Adaptations

Agency motives strongly dominate: this post is about control of narrative, status maintenance, and retaliation. The use of "us" (rather than "I") reveals a power-motive framing: Trump positions himself as the leader of a collective under coordinated attack, not merely a private individual annoyed at a reporter.

Schema activation: World = hostile, institutions = corrupt and adversarial, self = unfairly persecuted truth-teller. These schemas are durably activated across the 2016 dataset.

Level 3: Narrative Identity

Protagonist role: Victim-fighter — a subject being wronged by a corrupt institution while standing firm.

Contamination sequence: What should be a winning campaign (MOVEMENT posts from the same day reference 7,000-person crowds in New Hampshire) is being poisoned by malicious press fabrication.

Identity claim: "I tell the truth; they manufacture lies." The implicit identity assertion is epistemic superiority over credentialed journalists.

Contrasting other: The New York Times as emblematic of a dishonest, failing institutional press class.

Level 4: Clinical Indicators

Narcissistic injury → media attack is the canonical defensive sequence. The trigger is clear: the NYT published sourced, corroborated sexual assault allegations. Rather than engaging those allegations (addressed in a contemporaneous tweet: "Nothing ever happened with any of these women"), this post attacks the epistemic source itself. This is a two-pronged defense: content denial + channel delegitimization.

The "failing" label functions as preemptive devaluation — disqualifying the source before the audience encounters its content. This is a practiced operation; Trump had been applying "failing" to the NYT as a verbal brand for months.

Paranoid features are elevated: "making up sources along the way" implies active conspiracy, not mere error.

Projection is plausible: the accusation of fabrication directed at an outlet using named sources and editorial standards may partially reflect the disowned knowledge that his own counter-narrative lacks equivalent substantiation.

Rhetorical & Propaganda Techniques

The post executes a credibility inoculation sequence in three compressed moves:

Economic devaluation ("failing") — implies imminent irrelevance
Procedural failure ("don't even call us anymore") — implies journalistic ethics abandoned
Epistemic accusation ("making up sources along the way") — implies the entire evidentiary apparatus is fabricated

This is not aimed at the NYT; it is aimed at Trump's audience. The goal is to ensure that when supporters encounter NYT reporting, their first cognitive response is this is fabrication rather than is this true? This is textbook RAND Firehose application at the retail level: degrade the epistemic channel, not just the individual message.

Gaslighting Assessment

Present. The claim that the NYT fabricated sources is a denial of documented editorial practice. The Times followed standard journalistic sourcing protocols for the allegations it published. This meets the gaslighting criterion of denying documented reality and attacking others' perception-forming apparatus ("fake news," implicit here through "making up sources").

Authorship

Assessed as likely authentic Trump (score: 0.82). Local time ≈18:49 EDT is borderline, but the personal grievance register ("don't even call us anymore"), the emotional reactivity to same-day news, the informal adverbial construction ("along the way"), and the contrast with polished aide-written rally logistics posts from the same day all support authentic authorship. Confidence: medium.

Fact Verification

Claim	Verdict	Evidence
"The New York Times is 'failing'"	Mostly False	In 2016, the NYT faced commercial headwinds common to print media but was expanding digital subscriptions and was financially solvent. The characterization is a rhetorical brand deployed to damage credibility, not an accurate financial description.
"NYT reporters 'don't even call us anymore'"	Unverifiable	No public record confirms or refutes whether the specific reporters who published the sexual assault allegations sought comment from the Trump campaign. Standard editorial practice requires offering subjects a chance to respond.
"NYT reporters are 'making up sources along the way'"	Mostly False	The NYT's sexual assault reporting used multiple named and on-record sources who went public with their identities. No evidence of source fabrication was ever established. The reporting followed documented editorial standards.

Overall Veracity: 30%