And they were right! “In one instance, The Enquirer bought but did not publish a story about an alleged extramarital relationship years earlier with the presidential candidate, an unusual decision for a scandal sheet. The federal inquiry could pose serious legal implications for the president and his campaign committee. It also presents thorny questions about A.M.I.’s First Amendment protections, and whether its record in supporting Mr. Trump somehow opens the door to scrutiny usually reserved for political organizations.”
Everyone knows that “editorial decisions” aren’t protected under the First Amendment if they might help Trump. And there’s absolutely no such thing as a Deep State.
UPDATE: Tom Maguire has thoughts.
“Thorny questions”. My goodness, the Times was bailed out in 2009 by Carlos Slim, a wealthy Mexican. Does this raise “thorny questions” about their commitment to undocumented immigrants? Of course not, because they say it doesn’t.
Now obviously, Mr. Slim knew the Times was reliably progressive when he bought them, so he didn’t need them to change their views on anything. But the National Enquirer has been making money off of Clinton scandals for decades. Maybe the AMI people simply decided that, in mirror image to the Times Upper West Side readership, their readers wanted material that bashed Hillary and praised Trump. They do tell the Times it was a business decision driven by the popularity of Trump with their readership. Plausible? Sure. Legal? Say what now?
If all AMI did was pick a side in pursuit of an audience, my goodness. That is well worth investigating because we all know that the mainstream media would never trade sympathetic coverage for access that can boost prestige, circulation and ratings. Please.
As to aggressive coverage of sex scandals by the mainstream media, well, that may be ideologically contingent – back in 2007-08, John Edwards and Rielle Hunter were a tabloid-based open secret (gullible Media Matters link) for months before the “responsible” media decided to jump in. Why they might today rush to bash Trump based on mere allegations is hard to understand. No it’s not. Is the National Enquirer being investigated for spiking a story which the Times would never lower itself to touch? Too thorny!
Ouch. Plus: “Is paying for stories a ‘legitimate press function’? That is how the National Enquirer broke the case of the murderer of Bill Cosby’s son. They also paid Rush Limbaugh’s housekeeper for the scoop that got Rush busted for his oxycontin habit – I bet that looked legit to Common Cause. To paraphrase slightly, the dark night of fascism is always descending on the right yet arriving from the left.”