There's an old saying: Don't pick a fight with somebody who buys ink by the barrel.
There's also that thing called the First Amendment, which is what gives all of us, along with newspapers, magazines and tabloids - even sleazy ones like the National Enquirer - the right to probe, seek the truth, say and publish pretty much anything we want, whether the government or our neighbors like it or not. Of course, if you say someone is a thief or an ax murderer, you'd best be ready to prove it.
FILE — Jeff Bezos, left, and his former wife MacKenzie arrive to the Vanity Fair Oscar party in Beverly Hills, Calif., last March. (Axel Koester/The New York Times)Suffice it say, there's plenty of room for opinion if you can persuasively argue that our president is a con man or that the National Enquirer consistently peddles both lies and sleaze not only to make a buck, but occasionally to influence elections and curry political favor.
On Thursday, two giants with seemingly bottomless wells of ink began hosing each other.
Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos, the so-called richest man in the world who also owns the Washington Post, penned a blog on Medium.com accusing American Media Inc., the parent company of the National Enquirer, of blackmail and extortion.
In January, the National Enquirer published an expose of Bezos' affair with former TV anchor Lauren Sanchez, including salacious text messages. The expose led to an announcement of Bezos' high-profile divorce. Bezos hired a high-powered investigative agency to learn how the Enquirer was able to obtain his private text messages. The tabloid, in turn, threatened to release a number of sensitive images, including a "below-the-belt selfie" unless Bezos called off the investigation. Instead, Bezos, in his blog, wrote and published a lengthy piece exposing the National Enquirer's ploy.
You may recall that AMI, the owner of the National Enquirer, led by David Pecker, recently entered into an immunity deal with the Department of Justice because of the Enquirer's role in the so-called "Catch and Kill" operations on behalf of President Trump and the Trump campaign. Pecker (Yes, that's actually his name. You couldn't make up stuff up this good) was given immunity for his testimony about hush money payments made by Trump's longtime lawyer Michael Cohen. The magazine agreed to buy exclusive rights to a tell-all story from a Playboy bunny about her affair with then-candidate Trump and then sit on the story so that it would not come out before the election.
AMI was not happy with Bezos' launch of a probe into how it got his texts. In his blog, Bezos wrote that "Several days ago, an AMI leader advised us that Mr. Pecker is 'apoplectic' about our investigation."
A few days after that, Bezos said, he and his investigator, Gavin de Becker, and his lawyers were approached verbally with an offer. "They said they had more of my text messages and photos that they would publish if we didn't stop our investigation."
Then in another missive from AMI that Bezos made public in his blogpost, AMI laid out the terms: The magazine would publish the personal photos unless Becker (not to be confused with Pecker) and Bezos would state publicly that they "have no knowledge or basis for suggesting that AMI's coverage was politically motivated or influenced by political forces."
Hmmm. Now why would The National Enquirer and AMI demand that?
Further, AMI officials said they would keep the photos on hand and publish them in the future if Bezos or Becker ever deviate from that public statement.
Bezos writes in the blog: "If in my position I can't stand up to this kind of extortion, how many people can?"
While the Washington Post has been covering this, it's important to note that Bezos didn't use the Post to tell the story. He chose to tell the story and publish the AMI missives in a blog - unconnected to the Post. The Daily Beast, in January quoted Becker as suggesting that the Enquirer's pursuit of Bezos was politically motivated, and the Post reported four days ago that Becker suspected the source of the text and photo leaks were Sanchez's brother, Michael, a California public relations executive close to Pecker and former Trump campaign advisers Roger Stone and Carter Page. The brother denies any involvement. The Post reported that Sanchez said he was told by multiple people at AMI that the Enquirer set out to do "a takedown to make Trump happy."
Of the AMI emails that Bezo published at medium.com, Bezos wrote: "These communications cement AMI's long-earned reputation for weaponizing journalistic privileges, hiding behind important protections, and ignoring the tenets and purpose of true journalism. Of course I don't want personal photos published, but I also won't participate in their well-known practice of blackmail, political favors, political attacks, and corruption. I prefer to stand up, roll this log over, and see what crawls out."
What will be most interesting will be the examination of why the AMI missives didn't want any money from the richest man in the world, but instead wanted only a public statement that Bezo didn't think AMI's coverage of his affair "was politically motivated or influenced by political forces?"
Thanks to Jeff Bezos' commitment to transparency - and to his money - now everyone will be looking.