Not magically. US Presidents have rarely ever spoken directly to the American people. They hold press conferences to convey their message. When the group conveying that message wants you to fail, you can fail.

Thankfully Trump understands this and bypasses the MSM at every available opportunity. Many people (though fewer and fewer) still listen to the MSM and don't analyse or adjust for bias. They haven't been taught how to think for themselves so they swallow whatever is given to them.

In any other time, Trump would have probably been unjustly thrown out of office already. 

Or, the administration can just, I don't know, do their fucking jobs instead of worrying about the media and fucking twitt all day. FUCKING DO YOUR JOBS AND STOP WASTING MY TAX DOLLARS ON STUPID SHIT YOU FUCKS! Nothing has changed and nothing will at this rate, well, other than billionaires getting into high government positions, fucking why? We are going to be fucked in less than 4 years if they don't get off their assholes and start working for us the American people. That's all I care about.

Please listen to yourself. This is the man who has power over the US. He has access to a plethora of people set to help him for anything. If you're telling me some dumbass C-listed reporter can magically steer an executive branch out of the road, then something is wrong with the PRESIDENT, not the media. 

Fucking ridiculous how everything magically revolves around the media. Will we soon see aliens attack us if we continue to publish fake news about them? Will the illuminati begin world domination if we keep putting fake news? Will Jesus return to the Earth if we continue to publish fake news? 

A man who is perfectly fine with "bombing the shit out of ISIS" and returning waterboarding should definitely not be intimidated by some dumb questions. Then again, he dodged the draft, so I'm not completely surprise to see how much of a pathetic COWARD he is.

There's no reason why the president should waste his time in such manners. You have access to important news articles and top secret information from officials. Now what does he gain from whining over a SNL kit?

Well if those dumb officials would stop writing such long sentences and start utilising more graphs and maps maybe they'll make those briefings intersting enough to capture the attention of the president for more than a couple seconds and he won't be forced to gather his information from fox news, infowars and breitbart.

You completely missed the point.  Read Art of the Deal and you may come away with some insight of his thought process because you still don't recognize it.

Trump and the media have two distinctly roles in this discussion.  The media CONSTANTLY will construe statements literally or figuratively as the discussion fits their bias, constantly performing literary sleight of hand.  You will constantly see "Sources state : " on untrue topics. You will see inferences of a statement when no actual quote exists.  You'll see intentional mis-interpretations or exaggerations on a statement.  You'll see framing of discussions with an assumption pre built in.   When the media is so utterly biased towards one candidate or side, it's failing it's job in the most fundamental way possible.   But in 2017 -- it's a lot less profitable to simply report what's there and leave interpretation of facts up to the reader or viewer.  It's much more profitable to control the narrative and manufacture drama.

As for Trump?  The media is out of control and has been largely for many years.  The clear bias against him existed from day one.  He will never win in the eyes of this media, so he needs to reach out to the public in unique ways while highlighting the problematic media.  This threatens the media and causes them to cover him more unfairly and with more clear bias, which will continue to downfall of todays media.    

Except that Trump never claimed that there was a "terror attack" in Sweden, it was the Trump-haters and the MSM who completely made that up by (intentionally?) misinterpreting Trump's words, reading things into it that have never actually been said.

From what I've heard, the incident in Sweden that Trump was referring to did not actually happen the previous night; so it seems that he was indeed mistaken, wrongly believing an incident he heard about the previous night to also have happened the previous night. But what he actually said was strictly speaking not untrue, because he only vaguely talked about "what happened in Sweden last night", which could refer to just about anything.

What you wrote, on the other hand, is strictly speaking indeed false information, because you wrongly claim that Trump and members of his staff made up a terror attack in Sweden. So in a way, when it comes to "what happened in sweden", you, Sir, are in a way actually worse than Trump, spreading untrue information - or, as some would call it, "fake news".

They seem to be working pretty hard to me.

The media is the 4th estate. People look to the media to hold power to account. They failed to do it with Obama and they're going overboard with Trump. They're not doing their very important job, and yes the MSM still have massive influence over people's perceptions, including yours it seems.

Or, you know, people listen to Trump and think he's a narcissistic man-child. You don't need media, or really anyone else's opinion, to figure this out.

Drumpf didn't write the art of the deal, although he repeatedly claims he did.  It was written by a ghost writer.  The ghost writer has since said that he thinks Donald Drumpf is a sociopath.  So, not a great source to use.

I agree that the media is often biased.  However, there is a difference between biased reporting and fake news. 

You completely avoided my question, so I'll ask it again.

Drumpf and his administration have said things that are objectively false.  Not biased.  Proven to be false.  Are you ok with this?  Simple question.  

And as a separate question, if Donald Trump wanted to talk about rape in Sweeden, shouldn't he have actually talked about that instead of an imaginary attack on Friday?  Then maybe we'd be talking about Sweeden instead of Trump making shit up.

He specifically mentioned Nice, Brussels, and Paris (sites where there have been terrorist attacks) and talked about safety.  So, he had to be talking about something violent happening, involving immigrants, on a specific day, that is comparable to something similar that happened in Brussels, Nice, and Paris.  What kind of event could meet these descriptions that would not be considered an act of terrorism? 

Your part about Drumpf is puzzlingly biased.  You're looking for any excuse to make him right.  He could have been talking about anything?  No he couldn't have.  Again, he had to be talking about a violent event, involving immigrants, in Sweeden, on Friday, that has a corrolary in Nice, Brussels, and Paris.  There is no event that meets this criteria.  If you disagree with anything I said, please show me something that would fit this description.  It doesn't seem like you actually heard what he said.

As for me being as bad as Drumpf, that's impossible and ridiculous.  You know why?  Cause I'm a guy posting on a video game message board.  He's a president addressing the nation and the international community and trying to justify policy decisions he's made.  Unfortunately, his words carry a lot more weight than mine do.  You should be holding him to a much higher standard of accuracy than me.  The fact that you have to defend him by comparing him to "random asshole with a keyboard" is sad.  

It's like if you gave your friend some obviously bad medical advice.  Probably not a big deal.  If you were a doctor though, that would be malpractice, and you should lose your license.