BBC to Donald - Here's a link for every attack you said we never carried..

[HipChick]

opps..forget he can't read..

We have reproduced the list that was subsequently produced below, and explained what happened in each case and whether we reported on it.

Just because the BBC covered an attack does not mean that incident was not under-reported, although it is unclear whether Mr Trump was referring to US or global news organisations.

Some terrorist incidents do get more coverage than others, a point hotly debated on social media.

Most of the atrocities listed by the White House were committed by Islamists, and the killing of nine black worshippers by a self-avowed white supremacist in South Carolina is notably absent.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38890090

[matt819]

1. Kudos to the BBC

Waiting for similar reports from media organizations worldwide.

[TexasBushwhacker]

2. I would be surprised if he checks out the BBC

or any other international media.

[gratuitous]

3. Now his complaint is that they didn't cover the attacks enough

I don't know what the hell that means, or what metric the Trump administration is using, but it morphed real fast from President Trump's charge that a bunch of terrorist attacks hadn't been covered at all to that they hadn't received sufficient coverage.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but those two positions aren't the same thing at all.

[Ragnaut]

4. I just wish we wouldn't fall for every

piece of bait. Of course he was wrong with the statement.

That said - every media outlet is a buzz pointing to all the atrocities that were covered.

What do you think that douchbag wanted?

[elias7]

7. Problem is, if you don't respond, people believe it more

It's hard to combat a sociopath unless EVERYONE is willing to get on the same page. It's the Republicans move.

[struggle4progress]

5. "Well, OK, but the only reason they covered the stories was to make President Trump look bad!"

[lpbk2713]

6. Trump would reply.

But he doesn't know how to spell BBC.