The New York Times’ bombshell report on the
president’s taxes: How did they get it and why did they run it?
Donald Trump speaking at a
news conference on Sunday. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
In today’s never-ending news cycle, it’s easy to fall victim to
hyperbole and call the latest news story a “blockbuster.” Cable news networks
post “BREAKING NEWS” banners across their screens for stories that really are
not all that breaking or newsy.
But on Sunday, we really did see a blockbuster report — one of
the biggest since Donald Trump became president.
The New York Times got Trump’s tax returns.
For more than four years, one of the biggest stories surrounding
Trump was the pursuit of his tax returns. The only president in recent times to
refuse to release his tax returns has called this pursuit a “witch-hunt.”
But the Times got them. And they are a bombshell. Reporters Russ
Buettner, Susanne Craig and Mike McIntire wrote, “The New York Times has
obtained tax-return data extending over more than two decades for Mr. Trump and
the hundreds of companies that make up his business organization, including
detailed information from his first two years in office. It does not include
his personal returns for 2018 or 2019. This article offers an overview of The
Times’s findings; additional articles will be published in the coming weeks.”
This paragraph paints the broader picture: “The tax returns that
Mr. Trump has long fought to keep private tell a story fundamentally different
from the one he has sold to the American public.”
The report was stunning.
Some of the details include:
- Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won
the presidency and another $750 in his first year in office.
- The Times wrote, “He paid no income taxes at all in 10
of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more
money than he made.”
- He reduced his tax bill with “questionable measures,
including a $72.9 million tax refund that is the subject of an audit by
the Internal Revenue Service.”
It’s a complicated and comprehensive story, as you can imagine,
so I can’t go over every detail here. The Times published this piece, too: “18 Revelations From a Trove of Trump Tax Records.”
But, for our purposes here — a media newsletter — the big
question is: How did the Times get this story?
In a note to readers, New York Times executive
editor Dean Baquet wrote, “We are not making the records themselves public
because we do not want to jeopardize our sources, who have taken enormous
personal risks to help inform the public.”
One can assume then that the records were leaked to the Times.
Baquet wrote, “The reporters who examined these records have been covering the
president’s finances and taxes for almost four years.”
The other question that Baquet addressed was whether it was
appropriate to publish the president’s personal tax information. Baquet said
the Times published the report “because we believe citizens should understand
as much as possible about their leaders and representatives — their priorities,
their experiences and also their finances.” Baquet also wrote, “... the Supreme
Court has repeatedly ruled that the First Amendment allows the press to publish
newsworthy information that was legally obtained by reporters even when those
in power fight to keep it hidden. That powerful principle of the First
Amendment applies here.”
This is an important story, and of course the Times should
publish such information. This is the president of the United States. His
business dealings and personal finances are absolutely a story. Is this even a
debate?
Worth a mention
I found this quote from CNN’s Brian Stelter to be especially
insightful in the wake of the Times’ story on Trump and his taxes.
“I worked at The New York Times many years ago,” Stelter said on
air. “A story of this magnitude does not get published without weeks and months
of reporting, editing, and — here's the important part — legal scrutiny.”
Trump reacts
During a Sunday press conference that was held just as the Times
story was blowing up, Trump called the story “fake news” and “totally made up”
and criticized the Times, saying, “They only do negative stories.” When asked
how much in federal taxes he has paid, Trump did not answer, and continued to
criticize the media.
On CNN, anchor Ana Cabrera said, “The president, of course,
could solve all this by releasing his tax returns, making them public.”
The role of the moderator
Fox News’ Chris Wallace,
seen here moderating the 2016 presidential debate between Donald Trump and
Hillary Clinton. (Joe Raedle/Pool via AP, File)
The big media event of the week — well, as far as we know as of
now — is Tuesday night’s presidential debate. Fox News’ Chris Wallace will
moderate the first of three scheduled presidential debates. (There also will be
one vice presidential debate.)
So what is the role of a moderator? To ask good questions on a
variety of topics and to keep the candidates focused on those topics. A good
moderator also needs to make sure the candidates answer the questions asked if
they try to pivot or duck.
But is it their role to fact-check? No, according to Frank
Fahrenkopf, co-chair for the Commission on Presidential Debates. On his CNN “Reliable Sources” show, Brian
Stelter asked Fahrenkopf if Wallace would be empowered to fact-check Donald
Trump and Joe Biden.
“When we choose moderators, we make very clear that there’s a
vast difference between being a moderator in a debate and being a reporter who
is interviewing someone,” Fahrenkopf said. “When you’re interviewing someone,
if they say something that is in direct opposition to something they said a
week ago, your duty is to follow up and say, ‘Wait a minute, you didn’t say
that a week ago.’ But that’s not the case in a debate.”
Fahrenkopf said if one of the candidates says something untrue
or flip flops on a previous position, it’s the role of the other candidate to
call it out. Fahrenkopf said that’s the whole point: to get the candidates to
debate one another.
“We don’t expect Chris or our other moderators to be
fact-checkers,” Fahrenkopf said. “The minute (the debate is over) there are
going to be plenty of fact-checkers at every newspaper and every television
station in the world.
The wrong substitute
Getting ready for Tuesday’s debate, Wallace took the week off
from moderating “Fox News Sunday.” Filling in was Brit Hume — a rather
questionable choice.
Hume’s title is “senior political analyst.” That’s a title that
allows him to have strong opinions, and he isn’t afraid to share those
right-leaning opinions on both TV and Twitter. That’s fine, of course, but it
seemed wrong for Hume to sit in the chair of Wallace, who has done a good job
making “Fox News Sunday” a straight news program. Little about Hume suggests
objective coverage on anything. Fox News had other, better options: Martha
MacCallum or Bret Baier, for instance.
Now, Fox News could argue that Hume did ask Louisiana Sen. John
Kennedy about Republicans possibly being hypocritical by refusing to have a
hearing for a Supreme Court nominee in Barack Obama’s final year as president,
but willing to confirm Trump’s nominee before the election. But Hume really
didn’t push Kennedy, who essentially admitted that whoever is in charge —
Democrats or Republicans — choose the rules.
Oh yeah, this is big, too
Judge Amy Coney Barrett at
the White House on Saturday. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Imagine how busy the news cycle must be that the nomination for
a Supreme Court justice is not the biggest story of the weekend. But Trump did
announce Amy Coney Barrett as his nominee to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The
choice is controversial on several levels, most of all because many think that
the nomination should be left up to whichever candidate wins the presidential
election.
However, it appears Barrett’s confirmation could come swiftly. The Washington Post’s Amber Phillips has a helpful guide
to what could happen next.
Who is Barrett? USA Today’s Richard Wolf and Maureen Groppe have
a good profile. Adam Liptak, who covers the
Supreme Court for The New York Times, has a look at Barrett’s record.
And there are these opinion pieces too, both from The Washington
Post: Kathleen Parker with “What Amy Coney Barrett Has in Common with Ruth Bader
Ginsburg” and Robin Givhan with “Notorious ACB? No and No. Trump’s Nominee is No RBG.”
The Los Angeles Times reckoning with racism
In a detailed mea culpa, The Los Angeles Times addressed racism
at their news organization on Sunday with “The L.A. Times Reckoning with Racism.” The
package includes several pieces, including a letter from owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong and
a strong editorial titled, “An Examination of The Times’ Failures on Race, Our
Apology and a Path Forward.”
The editorial board wrote, “For at least its first 80 years, the
Los Angeles Times was an institution deeply rooted in white supremacy and
committed to promoting the interests of the city’s industrialists and
landowners.” It then listed examples of racist behavior over the years.
The lengthy editorial closed with, “On behalf of this
institution, we apologize for The Times’ history of racism. We owe it to our
readers to do better, and we vow to do so.” And the board added, “We make this
pledge in recognition of the many journalists who battled over the decades to
make The Times a more inclusive workplace and a newspaper that reflected the
real Los Angeles in its pages. As we reorient this institution firmly and fully
around the multiethnic, interfaith and dazzlingly complex tapestry that is
Southern California, we honor their contributions.”
Reds announcer resigns
A month after he used a homophobic slur during a hot mic moment,
Cincinnati Reds baseball announcer Thom Brennaman has resigned from Fox Sports
Ohio. He had already been replaced by Fox Sports on the NFL.
Thinking he was not on the air, Brennaman used the slur during a
Reds game and, when informed he was actually on the air, he apologized and immediately left the booth.
That was on Aug. 19.
Evan Millward from WCPO in Cincinnati broke the news that Brennaman was stepping
down. In a statement to Millward, Brennaman thanked the
Reds, Reds fans and the LBGTQ community and said, “I truly regret what I said
and I am very sorry.”
He added that he hopes to return to broadcasting again. He
closed with, “I am grateful for the forgiveness so many have extended to me,
especially those in the LGBTQ community who I’ve met, spoken with and listened
to almost daily over the last few weeks. With their continued guidance, I hope
to be a voice for positive change.”
Brennaman, whose father Marty Brennaman was a legendary Reds
announcer for more than 40 years, had been calling Reds games since 2006.
Media tidbits
(Courtesy: CBS News)
- Mail-in voting has never received more attention than
this presidential election. CBS News has come up with a unique way to look
at the data behind mail-in voting in elections since 1996: a collection of stamps. Now, to be clear,
these are not stamps to be used. They are merely a different way to tell a
story. It’s actually a pretty cool idea. Here’s an interview with one of the designers of this
stamp/infographic.
- A big change to Axios’ Sunday political newsletter, Sneak Peek. After authoring it for four
years, Jonathan Swan is giving up the reins to return to daily reporting.
Sneak Peek now will be written by Alayna Treene, a White House and
congressional reporter, and Hans Nichols, who left NBC News earlier this
year to join Axios.
- As journalists at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette are on
the verge of a strike, word came down Sunday that Post-Gazette reporter
Michael Fuoco has resigned as president of the Pittsburgh NewsGuild after
allegations of sexual misconduct appeared in a story written last week by Payday Report’s Michael
Elk. Elk’s story said Fuoco “used his on-and-off-again position
as an adjunct journalism professor at both Pitt and Point Park University
to regularly prey on his college students. Guild vice president Ed Blazina
takes over as president.
- ESPN’s top college football analyst Kirk Herbstreit was
supposed to be in Miami over the weekend to call the Florida State-Miami
game, but instead called the game from his Nashville home after he said he came in contact with someone who had
tested positive for the coronavirus.
Hot type
