In the thick of former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial, a spotlight has been cast upon a murky corner of the media industry: pay-to-play tabloid journalism—a marketplace where editors cherry-pick the juiciest scandals. During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump had the king of tabloids, the National Enquirer, in his pocket. At the helm was American Media Inc. CEO David Pecker.
Testifying under oath this week, Pecker revealed his active pursuit of becoming Trump’s “eyes and ears.” The National Enquirer and AMI were instrumental in a scheme to “catch” (purchase the rights to) and “kill” (suppress) negative Trump stories, a pact that forms the heart of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case. Trump stands accused of falsifying documents pertaining to a payment made to Stormy Daniels, who claimed an affair with Trump, in an attempt to “catch and kill” her story before the 2016 election. (Trump denies the affair.)
Pecker’s testimony spanned multiple days. He recounted meeting Trump in the ’80s at Mar-a-Lago, the Spanish revivalist seaside resort acquired by Trump in 1985. Their encounter blossomed into a decades-long friendship—or rather, a mutually beneficial situationship where each exploited the other for personal gain. Trump helped Pecker boost magazine sales at supermarket checkout aisles, while Pecker elevated Trump’s public profile, ultimately leading to the launch of his hit reality show, “The Apprentice,” in 2004.
Pecker spoke of being invited to witness Trump’s gilded escalator descent in 2015, marking the announcement of his presidential run. A couple of months later, the two discussed Trump’s candidacy, according to Pecker.
“I said what I would do is I would run or publish positive stories about Mr. Trump and I would publish negative stories about his opponents,” Pecker testified Tuesday.
The Enquirer headlines presented as evidence in court alternated between reverent and sleazy: “DONALD TRUMP: THE MAN THE LEGEND;” “JFK’S SECRET SON ENDORSES DONALD TRUMP;” “TED CRUZ SHAMED BY PORN STAR;” “”FAMILY MAN’ MARCO RUBIO’S LOVE CHILD STUNNER!”
However, this partnership seems peculiar for a man who has long claimed victimhood to “fake news,” a term he has hijacked to encompass virtually any reporting that does not flatter him. Bombshell reports on Trump’s tax avoidance? Fake news. Reports of him calling dead service members “losers”? Fake news. Alarming spread of coronavirus in October 2020? A fake news media conspiracy. Even the conservative Fox News has fallen out of his favor.
Ironically, some of what Pecker claims to have published on Trump’s behalf could itself fit the definition of fake news. Michael Cohen, Trump’s lawyer and fixer at the time, “would call me and say … we would like for you to run a negative article on, let’s say, for argument’s sake, on Ted Cruz,” Pecker said. “Then he would send me … information about Ted Cruz or about Ben Carson or about Marco Rubio. That was the basis of our story, and then we would embellish it from there.”
Pecker made no mention of verifying the claims before embellishing them. He would then send Cohen PDFs of the stories for feedback before publication. In exchange for his testimony, Pecker has been promised immunity. Cohen has previously pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations, admitting to covering up transactions at Trump’s direction.
The tactics described by Pecker run counter to the values instilled in aspiring journalists. While reporters may share quotes with sources for accuracy or context before publication, running entire stories past sources is generally forbidden. Particularly controversial is the practice of paying sources for their stories—something the Society of Professional Journalists deems “a threat to the newsgathering and reporting functions of the media” that ultimately “damage[s] democracy.” Pecker testified in court that the National Enquirer engaged in this very practice, labeling it “checkbook journalism.”
Offering sources money for their stories may incentivize them to provide more salacious or exaggerated accounts, and outlets that have paid for information may be less inclined to publish anything that contradicts their investment. While there are arguments for compensating sources, especially marginalized ones, the practice is generally taboo in traditional newsrooms.
In tabloid journalism, however, it is commonplace. Pecker revealed that his editors generally had a $10,000 spending limit for stories without further approval. Trump’s stories, however, were particularly expensive. AMI purchased the rights to an ex-doorman’s story for $30,000 because, according to Pecker, he believed it was “important that it be removed from the market.” The ex-doorman had alleged that Trump fathered a child with a Trump Tower cleaning woman, though Pecker testified that his researchers found the story to be false. The doorman’s contract, from which he was later released, stipulated that AMI owned his story in perpetuity and that if he provided it to another outlet, he would owe AMI $1 million.
Ex-Playboy model Karen McDougal’s claim of a year-long affair with Trump—which Trump has denied—fetched an even higher price tag of $150,000. Pecker stated that Cohen initially indicated Trump’s intent to repay the sum, though Trump ultimately did not do so.
Pressed on his willingness to orchestrate these payoffs, Pecker cited the “potential embarrassment” to Trump’s campaign. He acknowledged, however, that if the doorman’s story had turned out to be true, he might have chosen to publish it after the November 2016 election, when it could no longer harm the campaign.
This is not particularly new information. Tabloid journalism has been operating in its seedy manner for decades, and Trump’s ties to Pecker and the National Enquirer were evident back in 2016, when Cruz pointed out at a press conference that the outlet “has become his hit piece that he [Trump] uses to smear anybody and everybody.”
But now, in this first-of-its-kind criminal trial of a former president, the media outlets that facilitated his rise to power may also contribute to his downfall.
