I don't think people understand how incoherent Trump is and some of that is because news agencies like the NYT translate some of his statements into something that makes sense. When I listen to his speeches or read the transcripts he is often off the rails. His posts on Truth Social are insane.

Compare this headline to recent statements he's made about the war. Have we won the war? Or will be sending troops to Kharg? Is Iran's military 100% obliterated? Or do we need NATO to help patrol Hormuz? Is this a war or an "excursion"? He has said the war is winding down but also intensifying. He's made all of these conflicting statements and more, sometimes one right after the other.

They did not write the more accurate headline:

"Trump backs down on Iran threat, Claims of Negotitations Denied by Tehran"

NYT tends to be excessively charitable with what Trump does and says. This is because it's more important for the NYT to use language which sounds neutral, rather than language which reflects reality. Also, for whatever reason, the usual obligation of journalists to decry falsehoods does not apply to things Trump says off the cuff.

It's not necessarily a bad business decision though, a paper which applied the same standards on Donald Trump as it does on everyone else would presumably be even more painful reading.

A regular problem with national media is that Trump will say some completely ridiculous thing and then the media will report it by extracting the most possibly coherent idea from it and then paraphrase his words to express that coherent idea.

Trump will go on TV and say "somali immigrants are running mass fraud rings to fund terrorism and democrats are covering this up" and the media will run a headline like "Trump expresses concern about childcare fraud."

There was an interesting example recently where national media printed an AOC quote that left in the "uhs" and "ums", making her seem less competent and clear. But you'll regularly see this stuff removed from any direct quotes from Trump.

They mean that when the NYT says:

> President Trump told reporters that the United States and Iran were engaging in “very strong talks” toward resolving the war that began on Feb. 28, which had produced “many, like 15 points,” of agreement. He said he was postponing until Friday his threat to attack Iranian power plants while talks take place.

They're hiding the president's actual words on the subjects (yes, he wrote in all-caps):

> I AM PLEASED TO REPORT THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE COUNTRY OF IRAN, HAVE HAD, OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS, VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST. BASED ON THE TENOR AND TONE OF THESE IN DEPTH, DETAILED, AND CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS, WHICH WILL CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE WEEK, I HAVE INSTRUCTED THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR TO POSTPONE ANY AND ALL MILITARY STRIKES AGAINST IRANIAN POWER PLANTS AND ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A FIVE DAY PERIOD, SUBJECT TO THE SUCCESS OF THE ONGOING MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP [1]

And the NYT doesn't feel the need to comment on how unhinged the president is acting, or how this whole story is a complete, transparent lie. This is either extreme journalistic imcompetence or straight up malice. The NYT and the rest of the media share a large part of the blame in Trump's success story and the slow fall of the American Republic.

[1] https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1162782323629...

The headline reads "US and Iran Send Conflicting Signals on Peace Prospects." But that's not an accurate description of what happened, is it? "Iran Denies Existence of Talks with Trump Administration" might serve better.

I mean, it's not as if they're actually going to come out with the correct headline: "Trump Continues Lying About War, Makes Up Unlikely-Sounding Excuse for Chickening Out," is it?

But they can do better than "Conflicting Signals."