Sunday 28 April 2024

How tabloid headlines, fake news and an Australian editor have become the story at Donald Trump's trial.

Extract from ABC News 

ABC News Homepage


There's something deeply meta about a bunch of journalists sitting in court bashing out detailed notes on the behind-the-scenes workings of chequebook journalism.

Most of us not in that world know money changes hands – but $US10,000 ($15,306) without any questions being asked?

David Pecker, the former CEO of American Media (AMI), said that's how much leeway he gave the editors of his publications when he was boss.

If any "source" was asking for more for some salacious piece of celebrity news, it had to be okayed by him.

The revelation is certainly going to make me feel less bad next time I have to tell my editors I didn't manage to secure an interview with a key player in some huge story.

And it's just one of the many lessons given to jurors about the dark arts of tabloid journalism during Donald Trump's criminal trial.

Dubious headlines

The first week of evidence has centred on what was going on at Pecker's National Enquirer – a gossip rag which was sold at supermarket check-outs, specialising in celebrity scuttlebutt, true crime drama and chequebook scoops.

Before the 2016 election, it added another specialty: pumping up Trump, and tearing down anyone who threatened his path to the presidency.

Two front pages of the National Enquirer show unflattering photos of Hillary Clinton with negative headlines.
The National Enquirer ran hit jobs on Donald Trump's opponents.(ABC News)

Some of this was traditional tabloid campaigning — promoting Trump through headlines like how he'd be the "Healthiest Individual Ever Elected", and smearing rivals like "Bungling Surgeon Ben Carson" (accused of leaving a sponge in a patient's brain) and "Pervy Ted Cruz" (who was supposedly caught cheating with five mistresses).

Those dubious headlines were displayed in the courtroom this week – evidence, prosecutors argued, of the unusual relationship between Trump and the tabloid.

At the time — after Cruz suggested Trump was behind the five-mistresses story — Trump issued a statement that said: "I have nothing to do with the National Enquirer." And AMI told CNN "no-one influences" its reporting other than its reporters and editors.

But during his week in the witness stand, Pecker laid out a secret deal he made in 2015 with Trump and Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, that ceded extraordinary control over what went to print.

Bearing witness

It's fascinating to have a front-row seat in the first criminal trial of a US president, and a surreal insight into what it's like being in the proximity of a very, very important person.

There's a long wait and several security checks before you get into the courtroom, and once you're there, it's frequently locked down.

That means no-one is able to go in or out because the former president is on the move nearby.

Eating and drinking anything but water is strictly forbidden, and toilet breaks are infrequent and tightly controlled.

People desperately raise their hands like kids in a classroom to ask if they may use the toilet. Reporters scoff food in the line for the bathroom during breaks, because there's no time to both eat and relieve yourself.

Donald Trump sits behind a desk with his hands crossed on a pile of white documents
Donald Trump is required to attend every day of the trial.(Sarah Yenesel/Pool via Reuters)

"A bunch of us have been eating PB&Js [peanut butter and jam sandwiches] in the restroom because they won't let us eat in the hallways," I hear a male reporter confide to a colleague in the line to get into the court.

It's in that line I run into Lachlan Cartwright, an Australian reporter for whom the word "meta" probably doesn't go far enough.

He worked for Pecker as executive editor at the National Enquirer at the time. He now characterises the paper as a "criminal enterprise".

He's gone public about its inner workings — the front-page headlines Pecker would come up with that reporters would have to write stories to match, the photos of Hillary Clinton doctored to make her look terminally ill, and the now infamous "catch and kill" scheme that protected Trump from bad press.

Under the deal Pecker said he made with Trump and Cohen, Pecker would "catch" negative stories by buying the exclusive rights, and "kill" them by making sure they never got to print.

A key player in the scheme, according to Pecker's testimony and other evidence (as well as Cartwright's whistleblower accounts), was another Australian editor — Dylan Howard.

Dylan Howard stands next to a gate and holds a folder while speaking to camera. There's a Channel Seven logo.
Dylan Howard reporting on drug use by AFL players, as revealed by private medical records that were bought by Channel Seven, in 2008.(ABC News)

The former Channel Seven reporter was no stranger to controversy — he parted ways with Seven in 2008, shortly after reporting on unnamed AFL players' stolen private medical records.

The records, which revealed drug use, were said to have been found in a gutter by a member of the public, who sold them to Seven.

Victoria Police investigated, and two people pleaded guilty to "theft by finding". Howard was not charged.

Secret payments

Many of the "catch-and-kill" practices at the National Enquirer have been public knowledge for years, and they were most extensively detailed in journalist Ronan Farrow's 2019 book, Catch and Kill: Lies, Spies, and a Conspiracy to Protect Predators.

Howard criticised the book — which also detailed his work helping filmmaker Harvey Weinstein cover up stories — as "false and defamatory", and threatened Farrow and the book's publisher with legal action.

"I don't know what Ronan Farrow's smoking," Howard told a podcast after the book's release.

"I am not aware of any story about the president that has not been published," he added.

But Pecker, who was Howard's boss at the Enquirer, said Howard played a key role in buying former Playboy playmate Karen McDougal's story about an alleged months-long affair with Trump.

Howard spoke to McDougal and assessed her claims to be true before Pecker agreed to pay her $US150,000 for the story, and bury it. (Trump says the story is false.)

Dylan Howard stands in a suit and glasses in an office.
Dylan Howard was editor-in-chief of the National Enquirer.(Reuters: Lucas Jackson)

Pecker also said it was Howard who called him on a Saturday night in October 2016 and told him porn star Stormy Daniels was shopping her story about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump (which he denies).

"Woman wants 120k. Has offers from Mail and GMA [Good Morning America]," Howard said in a message to Pecker the next day. "I know the denials were made in the past – but this story is true."

This time, Pecker was reluctant to pay.

"I said we already paid $30,000 to the doorman, we already paid $150,000 to Karen McDougal," Pecker told the court. "I am not a bank."

Pecker instead advised Cohen to pay Daniels for the story and "take it off the market", which he ultimately did.

Court sketch of David Pecker on the stand in court.
David Pecker was on the stand for most of the week.(Reuters: Jane Rosenberg)

Howard later said in a text message, according to prosecutors: "At least if he wins, I'll be pardoned for electoral fraud."

Howard has returned to Australia and is unlikely to give evidence in the trial. The court has been told he has a spinal condition and cannot travel overseas. His lawyer, John Harris, said New York court rules meant witnesses in the case could not give evidence remotely.

Mr Harris told the ABC: "Dylan Howard has always fully cooperated with government inquiries regarding his former employer's relationship with Donald Trump, and the actions he was directed to do. But for Mr Howard’s inability to travel, he would have again, voluntarily, answered questions."

'We would embellish a little'

This week's evidence included more stunning claims about the control Trump's lawyer had over the Enquirer's content.

Pecker told the court Cohen would call him and request a negative article on a political rival. "He would send me information about Ted Cruz or about Ben Carson or Marco Rubio, and that was the basis of our story, and then we would embellish it a little," Pecker said.

He often provided Cohen with drafts of stories, so he could provide feedback.

The defence argues any dealings between Trump, Cohen and Pecker were nothing sinister. Questioned by Trump's lawyer Emil Bove on Friday, Pecker agreed the term "catch and kill" was not used during their 2015 meeting, nor was any "financial dimension" discussed.

A drawing of Donald Trump seated next to his lawyer against a red-brown background.
Donald Trump is on trial for falsifying business records.(Reuters: Jane Rosenberg)

Beyond the stories it "killed", there's no way of measuring how helpful the Enquirer ultimately was to Trump's campaign. Pecker told the court the relationship — which saw Trump give him inside information about The Apprentice and tip him off about events and parties he should attend — was "mutually beneficial".

Put simply, Trump stories boosted sales of the Enquirer, and Trump benefited from the publicity.

These days, the tabloid's readership is a small fraction of the millions it once was.

But Todd Belt, an expert in mass media and public opinion at George Washington University, says that's not necessarily the measure of its influence.

"As the National Enquirer has become less important as a publication, it still plays an important role in terms of what we call 'pack journalism' here in the United States," he said.

"It sets an agenda – it puts certain people front and centre in the public discourse, and then other publications will run after the same story."

Much of this evidence is secondary to the central felony allegations. The prosecution is trying to make the case that Trump not only paid hush money, but covered it up in a way that effectively amounts to election fraud.

Crucial to their case is the payment Cohen made to Stormy Daniels after the Enquirer refused to, and Trump's knowledge and intentions relating to that payment. Trump's lawyers have argued it was personal and unrelated to his election campaign, but prosecutors argue it was campaign expenditure that shouldn't have been covered up.

Trial continues

Unless something unexpected happens, Trump will spend another month or more attending court.

All heads turn when he enters and exits the courtroom.

For a man of his age, he appears in the flesh imposing and strong, almost menacing, as he slowly makes his way to and from the defence bench.

Pecker's testimony takes us back to a time when he ruled in this town – a reality TV star, a tycoon who lived in a Midtown high-rise named after him.

The former publisher said he discussed with Trump the idea of him running for president.

A National Enquirer poll found 80 per cent of readers backed the idea of a Trump run.

Trump, he said, cited the poll when asked soon after about his intentions.

Was the tabloid king egging on the reality TV star in the hope of further boosting ratings?

Interest in his then-friend, he said, "skyrocketed" after he announced his campaign.

Trump has long been estranged from the city where he made his name and built his fortune. 

As he sits day after day in a bleak Manhattan courtroom, I wonder if he ever wishes the results of that tabloid poll had come back differently.

Additional reporting: Brad Ryan

Australia to provide $100 million in funding and supplies to Ukraine.

Extract from ABC News 

ABC News Homepage


Defence Minister Richard Marles has unveiled another $100 million in Australian funding and supplies for Ukraine, as Kyiv pleads for greater international support in its resistance against Russian forces. 

In the package, $50 million will fund short-range air defence systems, while $30 million is being spent on drones for the Ukrainian military and another $15 million on equipment including helmets, inflatable boats, boots, fire masks and electricity generators.

Mr Marles made the announcement during a quick visit to Ukraine, where he met with the country's Prime Minister Denys Shmyal and Deputy Defence Minister Ivan Havryliuk.

A man in a suit with a yellow and blue flag behind him
Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal met with Defence Minister Richard Marles.(Reuters: Kacper Pempel)

"Ukraine and its people have endured more than two years of Russia's full-scale invasion but their spirit remains strong," Mr Marles said in a statement.

He said the latest package took Australian military assistance for Ukraine to $880 million since Russia began its illegal invasion of the country in 2022.

Among the equipment Australia has given Ukraine are 120 Bushmaster armoured vehicles and six Howitzer artillery guns.

Australian troops have also been crucial to training Ukrainian soldiers in the United Kingdom, as part of Operation Kudu.

The latest commitment came as Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy pleaded with his country's allies to bolster support for his besieged military.

In recent days, the United States congress signed off on an aid package worth $US95 billion ($145 billion) for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, including $US13.8 billion for Kyiv to buy weapons.

Mr Zelenskyy said he needed at least seven Patriot surface-to-air missile systems to protect Ukrainian cities.

"We urgently need Patriot systems and missiles for them," he said.

"This is what can and should save lives right now."

His appeal came after a Russian missile attack pounded power facilities in the centre and west of Ukraine on Saturday.

"Terror should always lose, and anyone who helps us stand against Russian terror is a true defender of life," Mr Zelenskyy said.

Mr Marles has also held meetings with his Polish counterpart Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz while in Europe.

"We are very committed to supporting Ukraine in its conflict with Russia, but we have also become much more illuminated about what is occurring in Europe," Mr Marles told reporters in Warsaw.

"And in that sense, the relationship with Poland is put into sharp relief and we see that there is an enormous opportunity for our two countries to work together."

A Royal Australian Air Force Wedgetail surveillance plane that had been deployed to Europe to help Ukraine recently returned to Australia.

ABC/AP/Reuters

Related Stories

Saturday 27 April 2024

We must target the root cause of misinformation. We cannot fact check our way out of this.

Extract from The Guardian

 Phone with social media apps on it

‘The underlying business model is rotten, and that ought to be the focus of our attention.’


One of the best tools we have to clean up this mess is already in our hands

There are once again calls for the government to Do Something about misinformation online, following the recent stabbings at Bondi Junction and the immediate spread of speculation and false claims on social media.

The previously ditched misinformation bill appears to be back on the cards. Even Peter Dutton has indicated support despite loud criticism from the Coalition towards the draft legislation last year. The original bill was itself, ironically, engulfed in misleading comments (misinformation, if you will). It remains to be seen what a revamped bill will contain.

The trouble is, the approach to tackling mis- and disinformation in Australia is fixated on surface level interventions. Legislative efforts that target the symptom, such as removal of content, factchecking and automated content moderation, however well intentioned, leave broader problems unaddressed. If we don’t deal with the underlying imperatives that make online mis- and disinformation so prevalent, we’ll just keep playing whack-a-mole.

There has always been some level of questionable information, spin, propaganda and lies disseminated via information technologies, be it through newspapers, television and radio, pamphlets and so on. But what makes mis- and disinformation so potent in the digital age is not just the speed and scale of it, but also its precision.

Because it’s not just about what you see, it’s about why you see it. Amplification, engagement and recommendation algorithms are the fuel on the fire of misinformation.

By now it is well known that social media platforms reward content that keeps people scrolling. The more time spent on a platform means more data generated and more ads sold. Polarising, controversial and sensationalist material performs well, and gets boosted accordingly. This is made worse by content recommendation systems used to curate experiences in the name of ‘personalisation’, which can take people down algorithmic rabbit holes where they are served more of the same, and increasingly extreme, content. Research suggests misinformation is possibly less effective at changing people’s beliefs than imagined, but is rather more likely to be taken as accurate when it aligns with their already-established political beliefs. The potential for recommender systems to intensify confirmation bias is worrying.

These algorithms are only possible because they are built upon vast quantities of data generated and collected by grace of lax privacy protections for decades. A United Nations report links the spread of disinformation with the rampant data collection and profiling techniques used by the online advertising industry. Misinformation as we currently experience it is in many ways a symptom of the data-extractive business model of digital platforms that prioritises engagement above all else.

On top of that, revenue sharing schemes create direct financial incentives for content creators (or anyone with an X Premium account) to create and share engaging content that is tailored for virality. That means people made money off spreading Islamophobic and antisemitic speculation after the Bondi Junction attack.

The impact of personalised disinformation is likely to be made worse in the future by developments in generative AI, which promises to deliver increasingly granular forms of customisation that until now had been impossible to achieve at scale.

If this all sounds like a disastrous mess, that’s because it is. Collective concerns such as the public interest, human rights and community responsibility can’t compete with the profit motive, and in practice are not prioritised by digital platforms.

The through-line is that these systems rely upon massive amounts of free flowing data in order to function. The commercial exploitation of personal data is a key driver of the business models of platforms that encourages and benefits from the production and spread of divisive, controversial or false content. It’s important to assess the causes of the problem at hand to identify pathways for meaningful intervention. We simply cannot fact check our way out of this.

But here is the good news: we do have the capacity to target this problem at its source. In lieu of dismantling capitalism and doing away with the profit motive entirely, one of the best tools we have at hand to put a stopper in the flow of data that fuels so many of the harmful consequences of digital platforms - including misinformation – is to create and enforce strong privacy protections. Privacy reform is on the agenda, and bold change has the potential to minimise data-extractive business models, improving our online media spaces as a result.

Verification tools and content moderation can play a role. But there are serious shortcomings of such an approach, including the risk of overreach and encroachments on rights such as freedom of expression. The underlying business model is rotten, and that ought to be the focus of our attention.

Samantha Floreani is a digital rights activist and writer based in Melbourne/Naarm. Lizzie O’Shea is a lawyer and a founder and chair of Digital Rights Watch

From domestic violence, to terrorism and war, social media is a thread that connects all the issues that now challenge us.

Extract from ABC News

ABC News Homepage

It has become a standard, if unfortunate, part of Australian politics in recent years for politicians to pick up and run with some incident to crystallise public sentiment on an issue and let the media debate rage on it.

Think African gangs, needles in strawberries, Woolworths not selling enough Australia Day merchandise.

You might notice that these have tended to be the preserve of the Coalition side of politics more than the Labor side.

That Labor doesn't do it so much may be a testament to their better angels, or to the fact they have just never been good at the particular style of politics.

But we now face a perfect firestorm of issues that both challenge our community cohesion and present us with Australian society in all its ugliness.

It is a particularly complex set of issues that cannot be untangled from each other.

That makes this particular modus operandi dangerous for both those who might be tempted to practice it — and the rest of us.

We all know social media has become an unwieldy force in politics around the globe. But our political leaders are now being forced to confront, in very specific terms, the really difficult questions thrown up about when enough is enough.

PM and Elon Musk feud over X's refusal to remove stabbing video.

A debate that has largely been framed in terms of freedom of speech has become conflated with a whole range of issues that now challenge us: from social cohesion, to terrorism, to domestic violence.

The killings, predominantly of women, at Bondi Junction and the stabbing attack on a bishop in the Western Sydney suburb of Wakeley have come at a time of horrendously relentless killings of women and amid heightened tensions provoked by the Gaza conflict.

Social media is a thread that has run through all these stories: from the misinformation and disinformation spread about the Bondi attacker while the attacks were still underway; to the live-streaming of the bishop's church service and subsequent misinformation that led to a violent riot; to questions about the growing aggression of misogynistic online content directed towards young men; to online abuse and threats of violence levelled at anyone on either side of the Gaza conflict.

Two mighty struggles

This week, e-Safety Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant took on X and Elon Musk in the Federal Court seeking to force the platform to take down 65 postings of graphic footage of the Wakeley knife attack.

She is seeking to do that under the powers the parliament granted her — under the Morrison government — in the Online Safety Act in 2021.

Elon Musk has a serious expression as he looks to his right and clasps his hands together.
Australia's e-Safety Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant took Elon Musk, the owner of X, to court this week. (Reuters: Gonzalo Fuentes)

While there had been a lot of political noise made in the wake of the Bondi attacks 48 hours earlier, about dealing with the disinformation and misinformation that had circulated at the time, social media platforms are currently only subject to voluntary codes of conduct about removing inflammatory commentary and misinformation.

Legislation dealing with these issues is currently being considered, as are changes to the Online Safety Act — which was already under review before these attacks all happened.

The ground has now shifted under the political debates about the specifics of both those legislative developments.

But in the meantime, there are now two mighty struggles going on over how we communicate and debate each other in future.

One concerns the fight in the courts with Musk and his assertion that, in trying to force his company to take down the posts, the Australian government is not only hindering free speech, it is over-reaching into an attempt to dictate what can be seen online outside Australia's borders.

The second struggle concerns the general position of our politicians about if, and how, we reset the terms of social media's social contract.

The challenges for Dutton

The political leader in the more difficult position on this is Peter Dutton, who not only faces divisions on this in his party — and in the conservative base — but also the problem of reconciling those divisions with his own strong views about social media when it comes to issues like law and order and child abuse.

It is instructive to look at comments Dutton made on April 8 — before the Sydney attacks — about social media and its role in facilitating things like young people posting crimes, like house breaking or car theft, online.

The social media companies, he said, have to "make sure that they take content down so that these young offenders don't get the publicity that they're seeking".

Peter Dutton and Anthony Albanese cross paths in the House of Representatives. 
Peter Dutton not only faces divisions in his party — and in the conservative base — but also the problem of reconciling those divisions with his own strong views when it comes to social media.(ABC News: Ian Cutmore)

The Coalition's private members bill would set up the power to do this, he said.

"Because at the moment, a lot of people are living in fear and they're worried about whether they're going to be broken into again. It's devastating, it's confronting to have somebody coming into your bedroom or coming into your living area, particularly when you've got young children."

In the wake of the Bondi Junction and Wakeley attacks, Dutton told Insiders on Sunday that there was "no question at all" that tougher action needed to be taken against social media companies and "I think there's a bipartisan position concerning this".

David Speers interviews Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.

"We know that the companies — and we've seen some of the comments from Elon Musk overnight — they see themselves above the law. The Australian law here should apply equally in the real world as it does online ... you would be sued for defamation and you would be taken before the courts under various acts for publishing some of that which freely flows on the internet.

"They're allowing paedophiles to distribute through their networks, images and videos of children being sexually abused, they're impeding the investigations of the police."

The more difficult question

This issue of removing explicit content is the same one Inman-Grant is trying to deal with over the bishop's stabbing.

For some, including Senate crossbenchers Pauline Hanson and Ralph Babet, and the Institute of Public Affairs, this amounts to an attack on free speech.

Dutton also faces questions about his approach from some in his own ranks.

julie inman grant speaks at a press conference
eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant and Peter Dutton are focused on the same issue. (ABC News: Adam Kennedy)

But he can't really go too far on the question of removing violent content, given his position on things like kids posting themselves breaking the law or child exploitation.

The fact that the Australian Federal Police and ASIO emerged this week to explicitly link the violent content with terror threats also highlights the difficulties for Dutton, given his tough line on national security.

Our national security officials told us the Wakeley footage could be used just as footage of the Christchurch terror attacks had been used by IS as part of their recruitment of young men.

And we subsequently saw the arrest of five teenagers linked to the Wakeley attacker, some of whom we were told had just as graphic content on their phones.

The even more difficult question becomes how parliaments and governments deal with misinformation and disinformation, since it involves not just removing graphic images but people's opinions and, therefore, becomes a much clearer debate about censorship and free speech.

When the government put up some draft laws to deal with this last year, the Coalition howled it down.

You would have to think the optics and the policy imperatives have changed.

Who wins and loses in the Federal Court is just one aspect of the battle ahead.

Laura Tingle is 7.30's chief political correspondent.