The media has apparently lost its collective mind over President Donald Trump's decision to serve fast food at a Monday night celebration at the White House.

The Washington Post actually went so far as to fact-check whether or not those White House burgers really were stacked 5,280 feet into the sky, as Trump — in his typical, hyperbolic speech — suggested.

You're kidding, right?

Not kidding.

President Donald Trump hosted the national champion Clemson Tigers at the White House on Monday night to celebrate their 44-16 win over Alabama on Jan. 7.

Instead of the party being a catered affair, Trump opted to purchase fast food for the players and other guests as a result of the partial government shutdown.

Pretty innocuous, right?

A White House statement on the decision read, "The President wanted to host a fun event to celebrate the College Football National Champion Clemson Tigers. Because the Democrats refuse to negotiate on border security, much of the residence staff at the White House is furloughed — so the President is personally paying for the event to be catered with some of everyone's favorite fast foods."

Except to much of the media, it wasn't innocuous at all, and The Washington Post blasted the president for his decision to buy fast food — out of his own pocket — for his White House guests.

On Tuesday, the newspaper reported on the event, and even featured a detailed layout of the culinary set-up in the White House's State Dining Room.

As if the layout were some kind of compelling forensic evidence, the diagram featuring the food was titled "The Clemson spread at the White House." The sub-hed read, "Detailed Washington Post analysis."

Sanity sometimes dies in the darkness, too.

www.washingtonpost.com

What else?

The Post's Philip Bump went on to analyze the president's "extravagant" buffet, which Bump believed could have cost upward of $3,000.

"The way to figure that out is straightforward: Figure out how much food there actually was and multiply that by the cost," Bump writes. "Or, it would be straightforward, if counting hamburgers were as easy as it seems in theory."

"If counting hamburgers were as easy as it seems in theory."

"If counting hamburgers."

"Were as easy."

"As it seems in theory."

Other quotes in Bump's write-up include Very Important Analyses Variables such as, "Another problem is that stacking flat hamburgers makes counting hard," and "Wendy's, unlike McDonald's, makes it a bit tricky to determine what type of burger is contained in a particular package."

Bump also analyzed how many calories were included in the spread, and perhaps how much your typical college football player weighs and could eat.

Bump concludes his article by fact-checking claims that burgers were piled up a mile high.

"FACT CHECK: At two inches each, a thousand burgers would not reach one mile high," he writes. "Had Trump instead invested his entire net worth — $3.1 billion per Forbes last year — on $5 sandwiches, each two inches high? A stack of hamburgers nearly 20 miles high."

At the time of this writing, the Post's article on the fast-food buffet is the most-read article in the political section.

You don't need to know the average weight of a Clemson football player to fill in the blanks as to what that means.