I don't know what people get or don't get, but you did absolutely nothing to debunk the fact that if even a single person believes what Trump said then it's a win, whereas if a single person reads the media's discrediting of him then it's a huge loss and could increase the amount of potential ISIS recruits. From Trump's point of view, to say what he did, was completely harmless on its own because even if people think he's lying oh well but if a single person believes it then that's good. But for the media to intentionally make a concentrated effort to disprove him on that is absolutely vile and sickening that they would put proving Trump wrong ahead of anything else.

As for the other headline, it shows just how vile the media is for the same reason mentioned above. They care more about smearing Trump than they care about ANYTHING else. It is literally that "This is fine." meme in the fire. Not only that, but if they can promote the leader of ISIS as an austere religious scholar, why should I believe a single word they say? While I know Trump is a liar, at least it seems his lies (at least in this context), had a mix between good/harmless intent. While the Washington Post's lies obviously have bad intent in this case as they would endanger the world just to take a shot at Trump. What if some ISIS recruits see that even the US media is calling their leader an austere religious scholar?