Analysis: The failing @nytimes writes total fiction concerning me. The...

9y ago Feb 6, 2017 at 4:32 PM

The failing @nytimes writes total fiction concerning me. They have gotten it wrong for two years, and now are making up stories & sources!

0:00 0:00

AI Analysis

Machine-generated analysis of the post above on 2026-03-11. Not written by the author of the post.

Danger Level

None

Narcissistic State

Grandiose

Authorship

Uncertain

Intensity

45%

Authorship Analysis

Uncertain

Indicators:

Signature 'failing @nytimes' branding
Simple declarative sentences
Emotional accusatory tone
Business hours timing suggests possible aide drafting but content is authentically Trump

Psychological Profile

▶ State

Grandiose State

Trigger: Narcissistic Injury — Criticism (New York Times reporting)

Rage: Intensity 40% targeting New York Times

Proportionality

30%

Sentiment

-0.70

▶ Clinical

Malignant Narcissism:

Narcissistic

50%

Antisocial

20%

Paranoid

40%

Sadism

10%

Defense Mechanisms:

denialprojectionsplitting

Cognitive Complexity:

Complexity

30%

Cognitive Markers:

perseveration

Parasocial Techniques:

shared grievance against mediapositioning audience as fellow victims of disinformation

Danger Assessment

None

Gaslighting Detected:

Blanket dismissal of institutional journalism as 'total fiction'
Accusation that sources are fabricated — undermining public trust in verified reporting

Reality Distortions:

All NYT reporting characterized as 'total fiction' — demonstrably false given NYT's sourced reporting

Fact Checks (2)

"NYT writes 'total fiction' concerning him"

False

NYT reporting during this period was largely sourced and substantiated; characterizing all coverage as fiction is a blanket dismissal without basis

"NYT has 'gotten it wrong for two years'"

Mostly False

While NYT made some prediction errors (e.g., election outcome probability), their factual reporting was largely accurate. 'Two years' maps to campaign announcement, suggesting all critical coverage is deemed wrong.

Receipts

No contradictions with other posts detected yet.

Psychological Analysis: Anti-NYT Attack Post (Feb 6, 2017)

Context

Posted at 11:32 AM EST, during a period of intense media scrutiny over the travel ban and Trump's first weeks in office. Trump was likely at the White House or traveling (MacDill AFB visit occurred around this time). The post is one of several media-attack tweets on this day.

Authorship

The timing (late morning) and relatively clean grammar suggest possible aide involvement, but the emotional content, use of "failing @nytimes" (a signature Trump phrase), and the accusatory tone are consistent with authentic Trump. The phrase construction is simple and repetitive — characteristic of his style.

Psychological State

This is a maintenance-level narcissistic defense post. The NYT represents an ongoing narcissistic injury source. The claim they've "gotten it wrong for two years" maps precisely onto his campaign announcement timeline, framing all critical coverage as persecution.

Defense Mechanisms

Denial: Blanket dismissal of all NYT reporting as "total fiction"
Projection: Accusing journalists of "making up" stories — a pattern of attributing fabrication to critics
Splitting: NYT is all-bad; no nuance or acknowledgment of any accurate reporting

Rhetorical Techniques

"Failing @nytimes" is a branding technique — repetitive devaluation intended to undermine institutional credibility through sheer repetition. "Total fiction" and "making up stories & sources" escalate from inaccuracy to fabrication, implying malice rather than error.

Fact Verification

Claim	Verdict	Evidence
"NYT writes 'total fiction' concerning him"	False	NYT reporting during this period was largely sourced and substantiated; characterizing all coverage as fiction is a blanket dismissal without basis
"NYT has 'gotten it wrong for two years'"	Mostly False	While NYT made some prediction errors (e.g., election outcome probability), their factual reporting was largely accurate. 'Two years' maps to campaign announcement, suggesting all critical coverage is deemed wrong.

Overall Veracity: 10%