Bezos to Pecker: No
Jeff Bezos. Today. Reporting attempted blackmail and extortion by the National Enquirer, owned by American Media, Inc (AMI).
Something unusual happened to me yesterday. Actually, for me it wasn’t just unusual — it was a first. I was made an offer I couldn’t refuse. Or at least that’s what the top people at the National Enquirer thought. I’m glad they thought that, because it emboldened them to put it all in writing. Rather than capitulate to extortion and blackmail, I’ve decided to publish exactly what they sent me, despite the personal cost and embarrassment they threaten.
AMI, the owner of the National Enquirer, led by David Pecker, recently entered into an immunity deal with the Department of Justice related to their role in the so-called “Catch and Kill” process on behalf of President Trump and his election campaign. Mr. Pecker and his company have also been investigated for various actions they’ve taken on behalf of the Saudi Government.
And sometimes Mr. Pecker mixes it all together:
“After Mr. Trump became president, he rewarded Mr. Pecker’s loyalty with a White House dinner to which the media executive brought a guest with important ties to the royals in Saudi Arabia. At the time, Mr. Pecker was pursuing business there while also hunting for financing for acquisitions…”
Federal investigators and legitimate media have of course suspected and proved that Mr. Pecker has used the Enquirer and AMI for political reasons. And yet AMI keeps claiming otherwise:
“American Media emphatically rejects any assertion that its reporting was instigated, dictated or influenced in any manner by external forces, political or otherwise.”
Other media say otherwise.
Then, whaddya know, The National Enquirer published some texts of Bezos’s, and Bezos hired a lawyer to investigate.
Here’s a piece of context: My ownership of the Washington Post is a complexifier for me. It’s unavoidable that certain powerful people who experience Washington Post news coverage will wrongly conclude I am their enemy.
President Trump is one of those people, obvious by his many tweets. Also, The Post’s essential and unrelenting coverage of the murder of its columnist Jamal Khashoggi is undoubtedly unpopular in certain circles.
(Even though The Post is a complexifier for me, I do not at all regret my investment. The Post is a critical institution with a critical mission. My stewardship of The Post and my support of its mission, which will remain unswerving, is something I will be most proud of when I’m 90 and reviewing my life, if I’m lucky enough to live that long, regardless of any complexities it creates for me.)
Back to the story: Several days ago, an AMI leader advised us that Mr. Pecker is “apoplectic” about our investigation. For reasons still to be better understood, the Saudi angle seems to hit a particularly sensitive nerve.
A few days after hearing about Mr. Pecker’s apoplexy, we were approached, verbally at first, 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.
So Bezos has published the whole correspondence. Read on.
Moral of the story-
It’s nice to be rich enough and powerful enough to tell someone to FO when they try to blackmail you with dumbass selfies.
It’s nicer not to have taken any dumbass selfies in the first place.
On the other hand, this makes an awfully good story and it’s really, really nice to be rich enough and powerful enough to tell someone to FO when they try to blackmail you with dumbass selfies and at the same time make the attempted blackmailer look really, really bad.
Still, what’s with dumbass selfies?
I really don’t understand people.
So Trump just got grabbed by the Pecker?
cazz,
I haven’t taken any scandalous selfies myself, but fear of blackmail or public exposure is not really on the list of reasons. It’s an utterly common thing to do, not something limited to reckless or stupid people. It’s part of how a lot of people flirt and/or engage in foreplay with their partner (“here’s what’s waiting for you when you get home”).
We hear about it when the pictures of somebody famous are leaked or hacked, or when some overzealous prosecutor charges a teenager for “child pornography,” but we don’t hear about the 99.999999% of the time when there are no repercussions from a candid selfie.
Bezos is the victim of possibly a crime, and definitely a moral wrongdoing. What you’re doing is blaming the victim, and that’s not cool even when the victim is a billionaire.
Screechy, I agree that it is blaming the victim, and that blaming the victim is bad. I agree that the transgressor here is the National Enquirer, and not Bezos, who is free to use his phone to take stupid selfies (or smart ones, I suppose).
Still, it is even in the modern world possible to flirt and to engage in foreplay without putting something into a format that everyone can see – like, face to face flirting and foreplay are still better and more fun than sending someone a picture. I don’t think people should be blamed for making these decisions, but at the same time, I find the current habit of constant selfies to be another example of a juvenile and narcissistic society. If they disappeared tomorrow, our society would continue to function, people would continue to flirt, people would continue to get together for fun and/or sex (or fun sex). I wish selfies would disappear, because they are not a particularly adult way to engage with the world, and they help contribute to our ongoing juvenilization as a society.
I’m in general agreement with your point about selfies in general being narcissistic, to the extent that you’re talking about selfies that are publicly posted or shared with a broad audience. I’ve always made fun of people whose travel photos consist entirely of “here’s me in front of the Eiffel Tower. Here’s Bob in front of the Eiffel Tower. Here’s me and Bob together in front of the Eiffel Tower. Now here’s me in front of the Arc de Triomphe….” because nobody really gives a shit — I know what you and Bob look like, and I’m prepared to take your word for it that you went to those places. But aren’t (consensual) “dick pics” (we don’t have an equivalent term for women, do we?) different, because the recipient really does want to see them? I don’t think it’s narcissistic to send someone a photo that will be welcomed.
As to the fact that intimate selfies aren’t strictly necessary, well sure, but so what? That shouldn’t be the test for anything. Teetotallers will tell you that “it’s possible to have a good time without alcohol,” and so nobody should drink. The abstinence sex-ed folks, and many asexuals, will say “it’s possible to experience pleasure and intimacy with a partner without having sex,” and so nobody should have sex before marriage (or at all).* But most of us don’t take those arguments seriously — and both sex and alcohol consumption can have serious downsides, including health risks, which arguably dwarf the risks of candid selfies.
Of course there are examples where the risks seem to vastly outweigh any possible pleasure — I can’t imagine what motivates anyone to engage in auto-erotic asphyxiation — such that I find it difficult to see how it could be a rational decision. But again, with selfies the risk of exposure seems actually fairly low for the average person.
*- I ‘m recalling a terrible song from the 80s with the title and refrain “We Don’t Have to Take Our Clothes Off (To Have a Good Time)”
“… everyone can see…” The pictures in question were supposed to be private. I think this is the photographic equivalent of an intimate email conversation.
“…face-to-face flirting and foreplay…” That works when people are typically near enough to each other to be able to do such things. Lots of people travel, lots of people have relationships with people they see in person rarely.
“… selfies…” I don’t think the situation would have been better if they had taken intimate photographs of each other and saved them similarly online.
People, perhaps naively, assume that material they put into a private space online will remain private. I do blame a wizard like Bezos, who built his huge business on such things as internet services, for being naive. I don’t see anything wrong with taking the pictures.
On the issue of it being nice to be rich, Bezos, to his credit, acknowledges this fact himself:
He knows he’s in a position of privilege due to his wealth, and he understands that that obliges him to come forward in a way that most people could not. That… damn, that’s downright ethical. I mean, it might also mean he’s an arrogant prick who simply pushes back when shoved, but I’m willing to cut him some slack on that front. (As for the infidelity, meh. It’s a personal matter between himself and his wife, honestly. So long as he’s not an elected official–where blackmail actually becomes a serious matter–I personally couldn’t give a rat’s ass.)
Also, an amusing aside, at least to me–the guy who sent the extortion notes apparently doesn’t know how to spell “dick pic” (he put a ‘k’ on pick).
https://www.facebook.com/144310995587370/photos/a.271728576178944/2303745766310538/?type=3&theater