We knew Enquirer was fake, but we didn't know it was political
Jon Stewart comes up with line of the week about media coverage
Please consider supporting The Front Page with a paid subscription: HERE
For a brief time when I was nine-years-old, we lived with the family of my mother's sister in a third-floor apartment with a little mom and pop grocery store on the ground floor.
From time to time, my aunt would send me downstairs to pick up the National Enquirer.
It's probably the first publication I ever purchased on a newsstand. The enormous headlines and splashes of color were meant for an impulse purchase. The front page screamed about affairs of the rich and famous. There was former First Lady "Jackie O"Â in a bathing suit on a Greek island, conspiracies about the death of Marilyn Monroe and, my favorite, the latest invasion by UFOs.
Even as a nine-year-old, I knew not to take the National Enquirer seriously.
It was a tabloid.
It was a scandal sheet.
Its stories were, at best, formulated from unsubstantiated rumors and, occasionally, it was sued and had to apologize and offer up a retraction.
As a former community newspaper editor, it was insulting to hear this tabloid rag referred to as a newspaper this week, to hear its work referred to as "journalism" when nothing could be further from the truth.
It was common knowledge that supermarket tabloids like the Enquirer would publish anything to sell its publication without regard to facts or ethics.
Its goal then was circulation, not politics.
We learned this week at the Donald Trump trial that is no longer the case. Former National Enquirer Publisher David Pecker admitted to helping Trump's political chances by printing negative stories about his rivals and killing negative stories about Trump.
We had mostly forgotten the Enquirer exposes on Ted Cruz's alleged affairs.
We had washed away the memory that Cruz's father was involved in the Kennedy assassination.
Those of us doing real journalism figured everyone knew that tabloids like the Enquirer were the real "fake news."
What was so insidious about what we learned this week was not that the Enquirer is mostly fiction, it's that it has extended its reach into the world of politics.
During the investigation into the sexual assault charges against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, journalists learned it was common practice for tabloids like the Enquirer to buy the stories of victims at the behest of Weinstein and not publish them.
It was called catch and kill.
In 2003, the National Enquirer paid a woman $20,000 for her story about having an affair with California gubernatorial candidate and Hollywood star Arnold Schwarzenegger. It never published and Schwarzenegger was elected governor.
In 2015, a woman accused Weinstein of groping her. When the Enquirer approached her about buying her story, she refused to cooperate and the tabloid responded by gathering and publishing damaging information against the woman.
Pecker testified this week that he promised to help out candidate Trump by being his "eyes and ears" for any damaging stories about him.
He testified there were three times when the Enquirer protected Trump after allegations of sexual affairs were alleged. Twice, the Enquirer purchased the stories and killed them. The third time they alerted Trump's attorney about Stormy Daniels' accusations.
This is not the unseemly side of journalism because this is not journalism.
Newspapers - real newspapers - do not buy stories. They do not participate in checkbook journalism.
Over the decades, there were several times where sources asked us to pay for information.They were told that is not how it is done. Some said they would take the story elsewhere and we wished them luck with that.
Real newspapers have ethics.
Lack of ethics should not be a business model.
Media coverage
Comedian Jon Stewart weighed in on the breathless media coverage as the Trump trial got under way this week.
Stewart showed the coverage of Trump's motorcade on Monday from Trump Tower in midtown to the courthouse downtown - about a 20-minute drive - and said this to the cable networks:
"Are you trying to make this O.J.? It's not a chase - he commuting."
Great line.
While it is true this is the first ever criminal prosecution of a former president, the reality is there could be three more trials after this one on far more serious charges.
If they ever go to trial.
Still, one wrap-up show in the evening is enough. There is other news out there.
Fox vs. MSNBC
To give you an insight into why there are two totally different views of Donald Trump, you just have to compare which stories MSNBC and Fox News are covering at the same time.
At 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday as Donald Trump's trial was beginning its second day, MSNBC had reporters inside the courtroom texting out the play by play of what was happening.
The coverage was wall-to-wall Trump trial for most of the day.
On Fox News Tuesday morning, it was covering the student protests against Israel at Ivy League colleges.
Later in the day as Trump exited the courtroom, both MSNBC and Fox News showed Trump speaking to the media outside the courtroom. MSNBC cut away after a few minutes while Fox carried the remarks in full.
Later that afternoon while MSNBC provided analysis of the Trump trial testimony, Fox News was covering immigration on the border.
Both networks showed the audio of the Supreme Court immunity case on Thursday.
Not covering something and covering something too much are also signs of bias among the cable news outlets.
I don’t know if anyone ever read the National Enquirer or similar tabloids to get real news facts, but even if you don’t read them, the blaring headlines are unavoidable as you stand waiting in the checkout line. They are like the subliminal advertisements that work by worming their way into your brain without you really being aware of it. The stories were just one more straw on the camel’s back, Trump excels at one thing and one thing only: promoting himself by dominating the media. Your senses become overwhelmed with stories, information, disinformation, opinions, sound bites, etc. Depending on your BS detecting abilities you either swallow it all and think of him as some kind of stable genius, or you see him for what he has always been, a pathological narcissist and con man.
As an aside, given the record-breaking defamation lawsuit settlement and testimony by its owner of promulgating fake news, I'd characterize Fox News as the National Enquirer of television news.