The New York Times, along with CNN, faced threats of legal action from President Trump over their reporting on a U.S. military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer.
The controversy stems from articles published by both outlets that cited a preliminary U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report, which suggested the strikes set back Iran’s nuclear program by only a few months, contradicting Trump’s claim that the attack had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
Trump and his allies, including Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, criticized the reports as false and unpatriotic, with Trump’s attorney demanding a retraction and apology from The New York Times, alleging the article was defamatory.
The Times, in response, stood firmly by its reporting. NYT attorney David McGraw wrote to Trump’s attorney, Alejandro Brito, stating, “No retraction is needed. No apology will be forthcoming. We told the truth to the best of our ability. We will continue to do so.”
CNN, which first reported elements of the intelligence assessment, also defended its journalism, stating it stood “100% behind” its reporter Natasha Bertrand, whom the Trump administration singled out for criticism. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s director, Rafael Grossi, noted that the strikes caused “enormous damage” but stopped short of calling Iran’s nuclear program annihilated, aligning more closely with the media’s assessment than Trump’s claims.
This dispute highlights tensions between the Trump administration and media outlets over the accuracy of reporting on sensitive national security issues, with the Times and CNN maintaining their commitment to factual reporting despite legal threats.


No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.