From ground coverings to transit totals: The Trump team's false claims

Jan. 25, 2017 5 AM PT

To the editor: Is this a contest?

I think President Trump and his team have more important matters to attend to rather than quibble over how many attended the inauguration. Who cares?

( “False claims from the White House,” Jan. 23)

Releasing his tax forms, as promised, is more important.

Carmela Elsley, Thousand Oaks

So Trump is agitated over reports that Obama’s inaugural crowd was bigger than his.He always seems fixated on the size of his — whatever.

Jill Chapin, Santa Monica

To the editor: As a 35-year subscriber, I’m begging you to keep up the fact checking on Trump.

I would gladly chip in some extra money for you to hire an exclusive fact/lie checker.Put a column of certifiable lies uttered by the Trump court in a prominent (front page?) location everyday. Offer $1,000 to anyone who can prove the opposite. Increased readership, better theatrics, more Trump meltdown.

The very definition of win/win/win.

Gregory Hilfman, Topanga

To the editor: Kudos to The Times for not letting slide the bogus statements made by Press Secretary Sean Spicer about the inauguration stats.

It is incumbent upon the country’s journalists to hold this administration (and future governments) to a high level of truth.Trump’s Orwellian-level falsehoods and hostility toward any criticism should be a rallying call to all who seek to report the truth.

No one is entitled to his own facts, and real facts are evidence-based and verifiable.A free press means having the freedom to fairly refute what those in power are saying.

Stay diligent, reporters. Stay diligent.

James Underdown, Hollywood

To the editor: Please make this a daily feature.

Ignore the trivial, instead relentlessly bring up topics and issues of national importance.

Just because Trump’s press people won’t answer the questions doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be asked.

Cluster bomb them with important questions.

When no one but Fox News and the National Enquirer are permitted at Trump press conferences, the American people will have their answers.

Karen Robinson-Stark, Pasadena

To the editor: Another day, another article fact checking Trump. I’m all for fact checking, especially on important issues (which these weren’t; they were trivial), but I wonder why the fact checking urgency now.

I don’t recall any such angst when Obama, arguably the biggest liar ever to occupy the White House, needed the checking.

I was thinking this is just another example of media bias, but then it occurred to me: Had you applied such zeal to Obama, you would have risked running out of space in the paper. Clearly it was a merely practical decision.

Michael Lawler, Los Angeles

To the editor: The public (and the media) will have to learn to pay attention to what the Trump White House does (appointments, legislation, executive orders, meetings, and the like) not what it says (outlandish assertions of falsehoods).

In order to overcome the deluge of words from Trump and his staff, we, the public, and you, the media, need to clearly understand the difference between fact and statements of fact.

Now, more than ever, the public will depend on the media to focus on what Trump and White House staffers do (their factual, verifiable behavior), and not on what they say (statements of their version of facts).

Gary Barton, Santa Ana

To the editor: I am so bewildered by Trump, his victory, his female family members, his minions, well, everything I guess.I enjoyed reporter Brian Bennett’s article very much.

It is always helpful to see what the Trump people say compared to the facts. It helps me maintain my grip on reality.

Maureen Mack , Walnut Creek

To the editor: I am writing to caution The Times about use of the term “alternative facts.”

The recent example of crowd estimates, Metro traffic, the use of magnetic sensing devices and whether or not grass coverings had been used (to alter the estimates of crowd size) in the past can be substantiated by specific facts.There are no credible alternative facts to this data and information.

Although The Times article does counter the false assertions, the administration’s creation of “alternative facts” attempts to create an “alternative reality” which in this case does not exist. We must rely upon organizations such as The Times to call these statements for what they are — lies.

We cannot allow the creation of alternative realities with alternative facts to intrude and distort. The consequences for our nation are profound.

Ken Shea, Irvine

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook