and creates much of the firestorm (although I think many times he does it by design). Nor that he doesn't care first and foremost about stroking his ego via outrageous boasts and even outright lies.

But man, do you keep doubling down on this inaugural and "alternative facts" nonsense. Believe it or not, "alternative facts" can actually be taking the alternative fact of viewership rather than attendance, as Spicer did. And why did Spicer do that? I'll give you the further elaborated actual words to hopefully help you finally understand it was in reaction to the BS narrative the media was trying to push through "fake" photos the day before:

"But before I get to the news of the day, I think I'd like to discuss a little bit of the coverage of the last 24 hours.

Yesterday, at a time when our nation and the world was watching the peaceful transition of power and, as the President said, the transition and the balance of power from Washington to the citizens of the United States, some members of the media were engaged in deliberately false reporting. For all the talk about the proper use of Twitter, two instances yesterday stand out.

One was a particular egregious example in which a reporter falsely tweeted out that the bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. had been removed from the Oval Office. After it was pointed out that this was just plain wrong, the reporter casually reported and tweeted out and tried to claim that a Secret Service agent must have just been standing in front of it. This was irresponsible and reckless.

Secondly, photographs of the inaugural proceedings were intentionally framed in a way, in one particular tweet, to minimize the enormous support that had gathered on the National Mall. This was the first time in our nation's history that floor coverings have been used to protect the grass on the Mall. That had the effect of highlighting any areas where people were not standing, while in years past the grass eliminated this visual. This was also the first time that fencing and magnetometers went as far back on the Mall, preventing hundreds of thousands of people from being able to access the Mall as quickly as they had in inaugurations past.

We do know a few things, so let's go through the facts. We know that from the platform where the President was sworn in, to 4th Street, it holds about 250,000 people. From 4th Street to the media tent is about another 220,000. And from the media tent to the Washington Monument, another 250,000 people. All of this space was full when the President took the Oath of Office. We know that 420,000 people used the D.C. Metro public transit yesterday, which actually compares to 317,000 that used it for President Obama's last inaugural. This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration -- period -- both in person and around the globe. Even the New York Times printed a photograph showing a misrepresentation of the crowd in the original Tweet in their paper, which showed the full extent of the support, depth in crowd, and intensity that existed."

The message was clear, and it wasn't about inauguration crowd or viewership. It was about saying we are not just going to sit idly by while you continue to spread "fake news" as you did about the MLK statue and the crowd pictures without being honest about the facts. We (the administration) will push back when you do that BS. So be better.