Just among us friends, some words about news principles

You might think it goes without saying, but just in case it doesn’t, let me say it.

The way David Pecker and Michael Cohen describe efforts to use the National Enquirer to help the Donald Trump presidential campaign is not typical of the way the legitimate press works.

Trump famously dubbed most of the broadcast and print media in America as “the enemies of the people.” It seems safe to assume he would not include the Enquirer under that umbrella.

You will decide for yourself which press entities are your “enemies” and which your “friends.” But, in the process, one question seems particularly relevant to me when it comes to the democracy: If you were a voter considering supporting a certain candidate and your friend knew that candidate was paying porn stars and Playboy models to keep quiet about sexual relationships they had with him or her, would you expect your friend to withhold that information from you?

Depending on what they could confirm, most institutions in the so-called mainstream media would think they have a responsibility, at least, to share such information and let you decide to what degree it was relevant to your decision. That was not the philosophy of National Enquirer Publisher David Pecker.

Pecker, who considered Donald Trump a friend and mentor, felt confident as then-publisher of the Enquirer — and seemed equally comfortable on the stand two weeks ago — using his newspaper in whatever way necessary to help Trump’s presidential campaign.

“Was your principle purpose in entering into the agreement with Karen McDougal to suppress her story so as to prevent it from influencing the election?” prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked him during his testimony at Trump’s hush-money trial in New York.

“Yes it was,” Pecker replied.

Karen McDougal was a former Playboy model who was offering to tell a story to the highest bidder about having a sexual experience with Trump. Pecker’s Enquirer gave her $150,000 for exclusive access to the story and then locked it away so it couldn’t be published. According to testimony, the paper did the same thing at $30,000 for a doorman who was threatening to reveal a false rumor about Trump fathering a child out of wedlock. It balked at a third such deal for porn actress Stormy Daniels only because Trump hadn’t paid up for the other two “catch and kill” stories.

Reinforcing Pecker’s story, Cohen further testified that he, Pecker and Trump had discussed in 2015 ways to promote Trump’s presidential campaign and harm that of his rivals. And he said American Media Inc., the Enquirer’s parent company, would let him review stories before they were published and send him covers before they published, which he would show to Trump, “So that he would see that David (Pecker) was loyal, on board, was doing everything that he said he was going to do ...”

Traditional newspapers like the Daily Herald and most broadcast outlets have their own problems with objectivity and transparency that are open to discussion, analysis and criticism. But no serious news agency would engage in the kinds of behaviors Pecker and Cohen discussed. Any serious publication would be ashamed of such behaviors, and should.

Until this case, I never thought anyone actually considered tabloids like The National Enquirer to be that reputable or reliable. I couldn’t have imagined that a sensational tabloid story about Trump in such papers would have any serious impact on his campaign, unless it happened to be confirmed and reported by better-trusted outlets. But Cohen testified that he and Trump believed the Enquirer’s location “at the cash register of so many supermarkets and bodegas (suggested) that if we can place positive stories about Mr. Trump that would be beneficial. And if we can place negative stories about some of the other candidates, that would also be beneficial.”

During the hush-money case, the unsavory, unprincipled acts of Pecker and the Enquirer have been discussed in such matter-of-fact tones as to suggest that they are common practice within the news industry. In truth, whatever our faults, these behaviors are the furthest thing from the standards we seek to demonstrate and uphold.

We might on occasion feel the need to tell our friends things they don’t want to hear, but when we do, we trust them enough to let them do whatever they think best with the information.

• Jim Slusher, jslusher@dailyherald.com, is managing editor for opinion at the Daily Herald. Follow him on Facebook at www.facebook.com/jim.slusher1 and on X at @JimSlusher.