How were the 2006 Stern comments about Ivanka reported by major news outlets at the time and in later coverage?
Executive summary
Major outlets in 2016 treated the resurfaced Howard Stern interviews as newsworthy revelations that reinforced a pattern of lewd Trump remarks about his daughter: Politico, The Hill, The Times of Israel and others reported CNN’s uncovering of 2004 and 2006 clips where Trump agreed Stern could call Ivanka a “piece of ass” and described her as “voluptuous” [1] [2] [3]. Later retrospectives and commentary pieces—Rolling Stone, Elite Daily and others—continued to cite those Stern clips when reexamining Trump’s public comments about Ivanka and when Stern himself discussed the tapes years later [4] [5].
1. How the initial 2016 reports framed the Stern material: “Another pattern”
When audio surfaced in October 2016, major outlets framed the Stern clips as part of a broader pattern of demeaning, sexualized commentary about women by Donald Trump; reporting emphasized CNN’s role in uncovering the tapes and highlighted two discrete moments often cited together: a 2004 exchange where Trump approved Stern calling Ivanka a “piece of ass,” and a 2006 exchange in which Stern and Trump discussed Ivanka’s breasts and called her “voluptuous” [1] [2] [3]. Coverage placed these clips alongside contemporaneous scandals (for example, the 2016 Washington Post hot-mic tape) and presented them as additional political liabilities for Trump [6] [7].
2. What facts reporters consistently cited
News stories repeatedly reported the same concrete details: the existence of a 2004 Stern interview in which Stern said “Can I say this? A piece of ass,” and Trump responded “Yeah”; and a later (often identified as 2006) interview where Stern asked about breast implants and Trump described Ivanka as “very voluptuous,” asserting she’d “always been very voluptuous” [1] [2] [3]. Outlets credited CNN or KFile for surfacing hours of Stern audio that contained these and other crude exchanges [7].
3. Tone and framing differences among outlets
Different outlets varied in tone and emphasis. Politico and The Hill reported the clips as politically salient revelations with a relatively straightforward news tone, summarizing the exchanges and linking them to the campaign context [1] [2]. The Times of Israel and Fusion framed the material more sharply, highlighting the “creepy” or “disturbing” aspects of the comments when recounting the content [3] [6]. Entertainment and lifestyle outlets such as Elite Daily and IMDb used more judgmental or sensational language in later rewrites or list pieces about “every time” Trump commented on Ivanka [5] [8].
4. Later coverage and retrospectives: repetition and reflexivity
In subsequent years, outlets and commentators revisited the Stern clips when compiling retrospectives on Trump’s public remarks about Ivanka or when Stern discussed those interviews himself [4]. Rolling Stone covered Stern’s own reflections in 2018, noting Stern’s view that Trump answered candidly and that the tapes remained online and in circulation [4]. Online retrospectives and entertainment sites recycled the 2004/2006 details as part of pattern-focused lists about Trump’s comments on his daughter [5] [8].
5. Misinformation, mischaracterizations, and contested readings
Some later social posts and articles amplified claims beyond what original reporting documented. For example, separate resurfaced clips from Stern’s archive have been recirculated and reinterpreted in ways that imply admissions (such as “that’s true” to being a sexual predator) without consistent sourcing; fact-checking and timeline context matter because different excerpts derive from different years and segments [9]. The provided later 2025 coverage shows resurfaced clips prompting stronger language and accusations, but available sources do not detail every context or confirm every viral claim beyond the quoted Stern exchanges and descriptions of “voluptuous” or “piece of ass” lines [10] [11].
6. What reporting does not settle or omit
Available sources do not mention exhaustive transcripts of the full Stern interviews in one place, nor do they claim every viral framing (for instance, definitive admissions of criminal conduct) is established by those clips; instead, the reporting focuses on the crude comments and the political implications of their resurfacing [1] [2]. Where later outlets or social posts make stronger allegations tied to other controversies (e.g., Epstein-related threads in 2025), the provided reporting shows amplification and user commentary but does not supply conclusive new evidence in the Stern clips themselves [10] [11].
Bottom line: Major news outlets in 2016 presented the Howard Stern audio as corroborating a pattern of lewd public comments about Ivanka—centering the “piece of ass” approval [12] and the “voluptuous”/breast-implant exchange [13]—and later coverage continued to cite those items while varying between straight news summaries, critical commentary, and recycling in retrospectives; some later viral framings pushed beyond what the original reports documented [1] [2] [4].