The former National Enquirer’s secret agreement with Donald Trump is shocking, even by the sensational standards of his former publication.
Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker’s testimony in Donald Trump’s hush money trial this week revealed the underhanded tactics his publication used to defend the former president, flagrantly violating not only mainstream journalism ethics rules, but even the more lurid standards typical of tabloids like his.
“I knew the National Enquirer was slimy, but I didn’t know they were this slimy,” said Kelly McBride, the senior vice president and chair of the Craig Newmark Center for Ethics and Leadership at the non-profit Poynter Institute. “It is so far outside the practice of journalism that it’s hard for me to even imagine that this was happening.”
In testimony this week during Trump’s trial in New York City, the former CEO of National Enquirer’s former parent company explained in stunning detail how he agreed to act as “eyes and ears” for Trump’s campaign, purchasing the rights to stories in order to suppress them, and even outright fabricating negative stories about Trump’s opponents.
“I wanted to protect my company, I wanted to protect myself, and I also wanted to protect Donald Trump,” Pecker said about why he released a false public statement about his publication’s “catch and kill” agreement to purchase and bury Karen McDougal’s story about her alleged monthslong affair with Trump
It’s a tabloid, that’s kinda what they do. But, that’s like saying The Onion is guilty of libel. No one should reasonably expect it to be real.
Except the Onion professes to be sarcastic. Tabloids suggest what they are saying is at worst, rumors.
But that’s absolutely irrelevant when you admit you deliberately lied in writing in order to influence the public’s perception of someone through deception. That’s just a fucking crime.
NAL but libel would be being passed off as truth whereas rumors may or may not be truth. Rumors are possibility, not gospel hence why it isn’t a crime.
I’m pretty sure I couldn’t legally get away with publishing an article in the local paper about how “it’s a rumor that WindyRebel is a pedophile.”
Straight up like that, probably not. If you phrased it differently and under an article about pedophiles and mentioned, “it’s rumored that these people (list names) may be pedophiles as reported from anonymous sources” then I bet you could.
It’s dumb, but phrasing matters.
Talk to Carol Burnett about that. She will tell you otherwise.