'Fire Natasha': Trump lashes out at CNN journalist for 'fake news' reporting on Iran's nuclear sites, calls on her to be immediately reprimanded
President Donald Trump has lashed out at prominent media outlets this week for producing conflicting reports on the extent of damage to Iran's key nuclear sites that were struck by the US military on Sunday.
The President took aim at CNN and the New York Times for publishing stories on preliminary classified findings from the US Defense Intelligence Agency, which reportedly indicated the US strikes only set back Iran's nuclear program a few months.
CNN was the first news outlet to break the story on Tuesday which heavily contradicted Trump's previous statement claiming Iran's nuclear facilities were 'obliterated'.
He labelled NYT reporters "bad and sick people" for downplaying the US military's efforts, but he singled out CNN reporter Natasha Bertrand for her ''fake'' coverage on the topic.
Trump angrily took to his Truth Social platform to rubbish the media claims and called on Ms Bertrand to be "immediately reprimanded, then thrown out 'like a dog.'''
"I watched her for three days doing Fake News,' the President wrote.
'She should be immediately reprimanded, then thrown out 'like a dog.''
The President then put another article by Ms Bertrand under the microscope and accused her of lying and attempting to "destroy our patriot pilots" in a story titled "Early US intel assessment suggests strikes on Iran did not destroy nuclear sites".
"It's people like her who destroyed the reputation of a once great Network," he wrote in a post.
"Her slant was so obviously negative, besides, she doesn't have what it takes to be an on camera correspondent, not even close. FIRE NATASHA!"
CNN released a statement disputing the President's allegations and stood by Ms Bertrand for her accurate reporting.
"We stand 100 per cent behind Natasha Bertrand's journalism and specifically her and her colleagues' reporting of the early intelligence assessment of the US attack on Iran's nuclear facilities," the network wrote in a statement.
'We do not believe it is reasonable to criticize CNN reporters for accurately reporting the existence of the assessment and accurately characterizing its findings, which are in the public interest."
The network also made clear its story was a preliminary finding that could change with additional intelligence and highlighted Trump's "own deep skepticism about it".
The White House addressed the CNN reports and labelled parts of the early defence agency report an 'inconclusive, low-confidence intelligence assessment' that was leaked to downplay Trump and those involved in the mission.
"Everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: Total Obliteration,' the White House said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
42 minutes ago
- The Age
Suburban Rail Loop will help only the few
Credit when it's due I am not a fan of President Trump, I have been known to make the comment 'America, land of opportunity where even a fool can be elected president'. He has obviously been misguided on the question of tariffs, but I believe he should be congratulated on recognising that Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. The world is indebted to Trump and Israel for the action they have taken. The world is further indebted to Trump for now enabling the peace process to begin. No doubt, Trump exceeded his authority in not going to Congress to obtain approval for the B2 bombing raid on Iran's nuclear facilities, but I believe the venture would certainly have failed had he done so. I can't think of a previous president who would have been prepared to take this necessary action. We are now seeing politics in action by his opponents in belittling what he has achieved. Give him credit when it is due. On this occasion, he has been given expert advice and has followed through on it. Alan Davidson, Altona Feeling less safe Early last week, Benjamin Netanyahu claimed to have bombed Iran in order to make us 'all feel safer'. However, his actions made me, and no doubt many others, feel less safe. Now with Netanyahu having drawn Donald Trump into the 'military action', I feel significantly less safe than last week. Is it because Netanyahu's and Trump's actions were based upon 'intelligence' that is contrary to that of both the International Atomic Energy Agency's and the US State Department? Intelligence that came from the same Israeli people and agency that ignored the warnings of Israeli borders watchers of heightened activity leading up to incursion of Hamas on the October 7, 2023, resulting in the deaths of over 1200 Israelis and now perhaps 50,000 Palestinians in Gaza? Why was that intelligence ignored? Perhaps then US secretary of state, Henry Kissinger's words from the 1970s still ring true: 'There are only 90,000 people out there. Who gives a damn?' ('Deep Water', Good Weekend, 21/6). In the greater scheme of things, ordinary people don't matter to the powerful. We have long known that the first causality of war is truth, and Trump has his own concept of 'truth'. Combine this with having complete disregard for rights, agreements, rules or law, and a preparedness to exert what is basically coercive control on all in his orbit makes for a dangerous combination. At a time when we need greater global cooperation, not competition, I'd feel much safer if Trump insisted countries spent 5per cent of their budgets on addressing global warming and humanitarian aid rather than weapons of war. Trump could then show himself to be a real leader. Rod Eldridge, Derrinallum Israel didn't start conflict Emma Shortis' claim (' Australia needs to find its courage ', 25/6) that Israel 'waged war on Iran' and breached international law is simply incorrect. Israel did not start a war with Iran—rather, Iran has long waged war on Israel through its proxies, including Hamas, whose October 7 attacks were funded, armed, and likely coordinated by Iran. Twice last year, Iran directly attacked Israel with missiles and drones. Israel responded in self-defence to prevent further escalation. Iran openly calls for Israel's destruction, funds groups dedicated to that goal, and even has a countdown clock in Tehran marking Israel's supposed demise. Is that not an act of war? In this context, Israel's actions were lawful self-defence. Likewise, the US acted to protect an ally and deter a regime that repeatedly calls for 'Death to America.' How is any of that illegal—or undesirable? Stephen Lazar, Elwood ABC charter needs attention As Karl Quinn writes, the ramifications of the Antoinette Lattouf case are 'potentially profound' (' Lattouf case has cost much more than just the money ', 26/6). The outcome of the case does little to resolve whether ABC broadcasters are free to express their political views. In deciding that the ABC breached the Fair Work Act by dismissing Lattouf for holding or expressing a particular political opinion, the Federal Court casts doubt over whether the ABC can continue to claim that its broadcasters are impartial, fair and balanced. It might be time to change the ABC Charter, abandon the pretence of impartiality, and allow ABC broadcasters to express their views openly. That would be a refreshing change from the current situation in which most ABC broadcasters play at impartiality while clearly holding progressive, left-leaning worldviews. Rod Wise, Surrey Hills Keep opinion to yourselves I'm amazed and disappointed that the Federal Court has said that journalist Antoinette Lattouf could post information on her social media site that showed a view on the Israel Gaza war. According to the journalists' union the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), journalists 'Do not allow personal interest, or any belief, commitment, payment, gift or benefit, to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence'. The MEAA also informs that journalists 'Disclose conflicts of interest that affect, or could be seen to affect, the accuracy, fairness or independence of your journalism'. Journalists' views, such as on politics, should be private, and they should not interfere in any way in their reporting. Marguerite Marshall, Eltham $8 million in super. Really? I could hardly suppress my crocodile tears after reading the first question and answer in the latest 'Ask an expert' financial advice column (2 5/6). The questioners – a retired couple with a combined balance of $8 million in their SMSF – clearly consider the proposed new super tax to be a burden they want to avoid. Noel's answer, assuming the SMSF's earnings in 2025/26 to be $400,000, shows that the extra tax payable would amount to just over $7000. Given that the couple expect to draw from their fund a combined pension of $333,000 in the coming financial year, I suggest they won't struggle to pay this additional amount. And assuming a typical proportion of the funds are invested in shares, it's likely the extra tax would be more than offset by the tax refund associated with franking credits. Kevin Bailey, Croydon Tax helps The headline ' We have $8 million in SMSF. How do we avoid paying the new super tax? ' makes my blood boil. It encapsulates the way superannuation has been hijacked by selfish and greedy members of our society who have no concept of the greater good. If you have that much money in super, you should be appreciative of your good fortune and be happy that your tax is helping to fund services that benefit all. Ann Maginness, Beaumaris Eroding trust The exponential increase in misinformation and disinformation is not a new phenomenon, but, as mentioned in the article by Liam Mannix ″ Brett Sutton made it through a pandemic. Now he's fighting a new war ″, 25/6, has become more concerning with increasingly sophisticated AI technology. The problem has been enabled primarily through the ubiquitous electronic media, and in particular social media which propagates beliefs and opinions often expressed by those with hidden agendas or inexperienced and unqualified ″influencers″, that are often mistakenly confused with truth and verifiable facts. Consequently, trust in trained and experienced experts, including medical specialists, has been significantly eroded to the detriment of community health. Anything that can be done to reverse or mitigate this trend should be supported. I wish Brett Sutton every success in his endeavour to do this. Furthermore, education should from primary school on, emphasise the importance of deep, critical thinking and analysis, thereby empowering populations to differentiate between fact and fiction. Leslie Chester, Brighton 'Red notice' red flag I write as a concerned and angry consumer. I needed a plumber to address a toilet malfunction in my home. I selected a plumbing service from the internet that had thousands of five-star reviews. First hard learned mistake. I am an older woman at home by myself at the time of my call to them. I was quoted more than $30,000 to address the problem. I was absolutely floored by this, and told the attending plumber I would need to speak to my husband before any decision could be made. I was then transferred via phone to his supervisor and was told, effectively, that if I did not accept their quote without delay I would find myself with sewerage leaking everywhere and would be issued with a 'red notice' from the council that would order me to vacate my home. This man was so persistent that I felt bullied and threatened. I refused to succumb to his attempted coercion. I was advised by another plumber that no such work was necessary and the problem could be easily fixed and for far less an amount. I know my problem is not unique. I was stunned to learn that there is very little avenue for me to address this behaviour with an appropriate governing tradesmen's body that would result in this particular plumbing service being sanctioned. Surely, it is wrong that such scams can occur so blatantly without consequence, and that the reputation of honest tradesmen is unfairly sullied by association. Christine Harris, Mordialloc AND ANOTHER THING Trump world Trump's desire for a Nobel Peace Prize by blitz bombing Iran is a classic case of the ends justify the means – which they don't. Greg Curtin, Nunawading How long until Trump launches his own awards system? Joan Segrave, Healesville Let's hope this time Donald Trump has said something true when he says Iran's nuclear capability has been destroyed. Tony O'Brien, South Melbourne NATO secretary general Mark Rutte has given the concept of ″brownie points″ a complete new meaning. Ruth Davis, Carrum Don't upset Donald! It is plaintive to watch the NATO leaders in The Hague to kowtowing to Donald Trump to keep the alliance together. For Trump the solipsist it was all that mattered - he was the centre of attention. Helena Kilingerova, Vermont Can the world's focus please be put back on the situation in Gaza? Israel is committing murder and mayhem. Rhonda Cox, Diamond Creek Re Megan Herbert's cartoon, 26/6: It was Hamas. It did house strategic targets. There never was a negotiating table. Sam Bando, Malvern Bezos' wedding Foam party? (' Protesting locals force Bezos to move Venice wedding spectacular ', 26/6). A foam party for 50 to 60-year-olds? And here's me thinking the US president was childish Pam Cupper, Dimboola Furthermore Twice this week the majority of the sport section has been devoted to the trials and tribulations of just one AFL football club. Enough! Apart from Carlton supporters – who cares! There are 17 other AFL clubs. Brian Kidd, Mt Waverley
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
What happened to my brother, Julian Assange, once felt extraordinary. Today it feels like the norm
The London rain was falling sideways as we walked from Plumstead Station to Belmarsh Prison. My father, John Shipton, had his collar turned up against the wind, but it was no use – we were soaked by the time we reached the gate. Beside us was journalist John Pilger, he moved a bit slower, his presence a quiet anchor in the storm. It was a pilgrimage we would make again and again over the next five years. But this was the first time. We were going to see my brother, Julian Assange. Inside the walls of that maximum-security prison, he was being held in solitary confinement – not for violent crime, but for daring to publish the truth. On the train ride back, still drenched, still angry, we knew we had to do more than visit. Pilger believed there was still a chance the British courts might block Julian's extradition. But we couldn't rely on legal processes alone. We needed a movement. On that dark day, the plan began to take shape. Legal action, yes – but also a broad, public campaign. My dad and Stella Assange would take Julian's case to Europe's parliaments and streets. We would build a grassroots network, organise street protests, mobilise supporters, and begin a media offensive. We needed a film to counter the years of smears. Every step would need funding, persistence, and people. That was the beginning. A small conversation on a wet train ride that became our mission. What we discovered along the way was this: when someone speaks truth to power, the infrastructure to protect them doesn't exist. Governments and institutions often fall silent. Legal defences are slow, expensive, and easily outmatched. Media outlets are inconsistent allies. And too often, the public is left watching from the sidelines, unsure how to help. So we built the response ourselves. What began as a campaign for one man became something bigger – a movement shaped by experience, driven by necessity. We took the lessons, tools and networks we forged during Julian's fight and turned them into something lasting: an organisation dedicated to protecting those courageous enough to speak out. Because what happened to Julian wasn't just a tragedy. It was a template for those who wish to suppress dissent on a global scale. Loading Now, that warning has become impossible to ignore. The silencing of those who seek to hold power to account has picked up a blistering pace. We've watched it unfold before our eyes with the deaths of more than 185 journalists in Gaza according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. In the United States, those voicing opposition are facing the threat of deportation to hellish prison conditions in El Salvador. Journalists are being stopped and questioned at the border and in some cases turned away. And in the past 24 hours, President Donald Trump's criticism of CNN and other outlets over reports on US strikes on Iran's nuclear program is creating a climate that discourages open dialogue and may limit the public's access to critical reporting. The same forces that came after Julian are now moving in broad daylight. These are not isolated incidents. They are signals – warnings meant to suppress speech, punish resistance, and make people afraid to resist. If what happened to Julian once felt extraordinary, today it feels like the norm.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
What happened to my brother, Julian Assange, once felt extraordinary. Today it feels like the norm
The London rain was falling sideways as we walked from Plumstead Station to Belmarsh Prison. My father, John Shipton, had his collar turned up against the wind, but it was no use – we were soaked by the time we reached the gate. Beside us was journalist John Pilger, he moved a bit slower, his presence a quiet anchor in the storm. It was a pilgrimage we would make again and again over the next five years. But this was the first time. We were going to see my brother, Julian Assange. Inside the walls of that maximum-security prison, he was being held in solitary confinement – not for violent crime, but for daring to publish the truth. On the train ride back, still drenched, still angry, we knew we had to do more than visit. Pilger believed there was still a chance the British courts might block Julian's extradition. But we couldn't rely on legal processes alone. We needed a movement. On that dark day, the plan began to take shape. Legal action, yes – but also a broad, public campaign. My dad and Stella Assange would take Julian's case to Europe's parliaments and streets. We would build a grassroots network, organise street protests, mobilise supporters, and begin a media offensive. We needed a film to counter the years of smears. Every step would need funding, persistence, and people. That was the beginning. A small conversation on a wet train ride that became our mission. What we discovered along the way was this: when someone speaks truth to power, the infrastructure to protect them doesn't exist. Governments and institutions often fall silent. Legal defences are slow, expensive, and easily outmatched. Media outlets are inconsistent allies. And too often, the public is left watching from the sidelines, unsure how to help. So we built the response ourselves. What began as a campaign for one man became something bigger – a movement shaped by experience, driven by necessity. We took the lessons, tools and networks we forged during Julian's fight and turned them into something lasting: an organisation dedicated to protecting those courageous enough to speak out. Because what happened to Julian wasn't just a tragedy. It was a template for those who wish to suppress dissent on a global scale. Loading Now, that warning has become impossible to ignore. The silencing of those who seek to hold power to account has picked up a blistering pace. We've watched it unfold before our eyes with the deaths of more than 185 journalists in Gaza according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. In the United States, those voicing opposition are facing the threat of deportation to hellish prison conditions in El Salvador. Journalists are being stopped and questioned at the border and in some cases turned away. And in the past 24 hours, President Donald Trump's criticism of CNN and other outlets over reports on US strikes on Iran's nuclear program is creating a climate that discourages open dialogue and may limit the public's access to critical reporting. The same forces that came after Julian are now moving in broad daylight. These are not isolated incidents. They are signals – warnings meant to suppress speech, punish resistance, and make people afraid to resist. If what happened to Julian once felt extraordinary, today it feels like the norm.
