Trump says he wants to turn his relationship with The New York Times around

You might have heard: After holding an off-the-record meeting with network executives on Monday (Huffington Post), Donald Trump was scheduled to meet with New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger on Tuesday and to speak on the record with NYT reporters and editors (@mlcalderone, Twitter), but the meeting was canceled after Trump claimed “the terms and conditions of the meeting were changed at the last moment,” only to declared back on several hours later (Politico)

But did you know: After months of calling the newspaper “the lying New York Times” or “the failing New York Times,” Donald Trump says he’s ready to turn his relationship with the paper around. “I think it would make the job I am doing much easier,” Trump said in his meeting with NYT reporters and editors on Tuesday. “If you see something or you get something where you feel that I’m wrong, I’d love to hear it. You can call me. Arthur [Sulzberger] can call me,” Trump urged the reporters and editors.

+ Incoming White House chief of staff Reince Priebus reportedly tried to get the meeting canceled by erroneously telling Trump the NYT was changing the terms of the meeting, “because he could face questions he might not be prepared to answer” (New York Times)

+ By having an off-the-record meeting with network execs, Margaret Sullivan argues that Trump “once again was able to use the media as his favorite foil” and NYT got it right by going on the record (Washington Post); Trump said in the off-the-record meeting that he wants a relationship with the media that is “cordial and productive,” but it wasn’t clear what such a relationship might look like (NPR)

+ “The existential problem this poses for the mainstream press is this: Do they accede to Trump’s demands in order to get access to him and his administration so that they can better report on it? Or do they become even more antagonistic in their coverage, and give up any hope of a working relationship? Both of these come with significant risks,” Mathew Ingram writes (Fortune)