The NYT Publication of Leaked Personal Tax Records

[jonny5]

Is it ethical?
Is it legal?

Certainly its biased. I dont think anyone can seriously challenge the idea that The NYT supports liberalism and is using the paper to influence the election. I think its also unethical. Just read the SPJ code of ethics and you can see many of their codes violated.

SPJ Code of Ethics - Society of Professional Journalists

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.

www.spj.org

Legality is a gray area. The press is certainly free, but people also have a right to privacy. Private citizens, much less public officials have very little ability to fight people who buy ink by the barrel. I wouldnt put it past the NYT to encourage leaking of private information, but theres no evidence of it. The NYT wont provide the leaked documents to protect their sources. So their covering up a criminal act at the least, to further their own political goals. Then publishing private information in order to harm the reputation of a person who has a right to private person is likely slander, but again, the press is free. So, I dont know. Its unlikely anyone will be punished for this, and if Trump wins, it wont have mattered. Even if he loses, hes still rich and powerful, more than the NYT.

 

[BlueTex]

There is nothing illegal or criminal about the NYT receiving this information and reporting on it.. This is well established law... The only possible recourse Trump would have would be to sue for libel but that of course would require him to show his tax returns to the NYT attorneys to prove what they published is false. If its not false, its not libel.

 

[Lutherf]

The Times has put itself in an interesting position here. They have presented these records as if they are fact but then refuse to release the records in support of that claim. At this point, and unless they release the records, it looks like the Times is engaging in a highly politicized disinformation campaign designed to harm Donald Trump's political goals. That type of isn't "news" and it isn't an act of "the press" as we understand the term. It's a purely political act and, frankly, opens the door to litigation over whether the sources can be protected or not. In many ways this is the same as what's going on with social media platforms. If they are editing user content in ways that favor one political ideology over another then they are not acting as platforms for free speech and, again, should not be protected on that basis.

The Times, as I see it, has got to release their source data. They don't have to say who they got it from but they damned sure need to provide the data so that others, including Trump, can properly address the claims that have been made.

 

[BlueTex]

The Times has put itself in an interesting position here. They have presented these records as if they are fact but then refuse to release the records in support of that claim. At this point, and unless they release the records, it looks like the Times is engaging in a highly politicized disinformation campaign designed to harm Donald Trump's political goals. That type of isn't "news" and it isn't an act of "the press" as we understand the term. It's a purely political act and, frankly, opens the door to litigation over whether the sources can be protected or not. In many ways this is the same as what's going on with social media platforms. If they are editing user content in ways that favor one political ideology over another then they are not acting as platforms for free speech and, again, should not be protected on that basis.

The Times, as I see it, has got to release their source data. They don't have to say who they got it from but they damned sure need to provide the data so that others, including Trump, can properly address the claims that have been made.

Jack White won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on Nixon's tax returns... The NYT doesn't have to disclose squat...

Jack White (reporter) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Lutherf]

Jack White won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on Nixon's tax returns... The NYT doesn't have to disclose squat...

Jack White (reporter) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes. The situation was a little bit different. The story about Nixon's "charitable donation" was pretty well known and had been in the press for months before White published his piece. The initial disclosure was through a civil suit related to the Watergate case. Basically, White's source dropped paperwork that confirmed what everyone had already figured out through public records and an interview with Nixon's tax attorney.

The White case was "news" because it confirmed information already in the public realm and merely substantiated claims that had already been made. In this case it isn't "news" because the ONLY matter it pertains to is the political decision Trump made to keep his returns private.

 

[BlueTex]

Yes. The situation was a little bit different. The story about Nixon's "charitable donation" was pretty well known and had been in the press for months before White published his piece. The initial disclosure was through a civil suit related to the Watergate case. Basically, White's source dropped paperwork that confirmed what everyone had already figured out through public records and an interview with Nixon's tax attorney.

The White case was "news" because it confirmed information already in the public realm and merely substantiated claims that had already been made. In this case it isn't "news" because the ONLY matter it pertains to is the political decision Trump made to keep his returns private.

Trump just basically confirmed the story via tweet...

 

[Lutherf]

Trump just basically confirmed the story via tweet...

What do you see being "confirmed" in those Tweets?

 

[chuckiechan]

Is it ethical?
Is it legal?

Certainly its biased. I dont think anyone can seriously challenge the idea that The NYT supports liberalism and is using the paper to influence the election. I think its also unethical. Just read the SPJ code of ethics and you can see many of their codes violated.

SPJ Code of Ethics - Society of Professional Journalists

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.

www.spj.org

Legality is a gray area. The press is certainly free, but people also have a right to privacy. Private citizens, much less public officials have very little ability to fight people who buy ink by the barrel. I wouldnt put it past the NYT to encourage leaking of private information, but theres no evidence of it. The NYT wont provide the leaked documents to protect their sources. So their covering up a criminal act at the least, to further their own political goals. Then publishing private information in order to harm the reputation of a person who has a right to private person is likely slander, but again, the press is free. So, I dont know. Its unlikely anyone will be punished for this, and if Trump wins, it wont have mattered. Even if he loses, hes still rich and powerful, more than the NYT.

There comes a point at which enough is enough. No one but TDS’ers care anymore. “NYT hates Trump, WaPo hates Trump, etc.” most Americans at this point understand the media is corrupt and that is the way it is. I would not be a bit surprised to see an anti trust effort in Trumps second term, and I think Americans would support it, particularly since their parent companies are all quoting each other since the day of the reporter has been distilled down to forty or fifty real people, who are terribly under paid.

FOR YOU TAX WEENIES: If Trump forgoes his salary, and orders it donated (which I think he does), it is deductible?

 

[Slavister]

Yes. The situation was a little bit different. The story about Nixon's "charitable donation" was pretty well known and had been in the press for months before White published his piece. The initial disclosure was through a civil suit related to the Watergate case. Basically, White's source dropped paperwork that confirmed what everyone had already figured out through public records and an interview with Nixon's tax attorney.

The White case was "news" because it confirmed information already in the public realm and merely substantiated claims that had already been made. In this case it isn't "news" because the ONLY matter it pertains to is the political decision Trump made to keep his returns private.

Huh? Same logic applies here. It's already been pretty well known that Trump had been avoiding paying taxes (heck, he had said it himself in Hillary debate) and this is just a confirmation of the same.

The NYT wont provide the leaked documents to protect their sources. So their covering up a criminal act at the least, to further their own political goals. Then publishing private information in order to harm the reputation of a person who has a right to private person is likely slander, but again, the press is free.

Just what Trump and GOP and the press did with DNC emails. Nothing new here.

 

[jonny5]

There is nothing illegal or criminal about the NYT receiving this information and reporting on it.. This is well established law... The only possible recourse Trump would have would be to sue for libel but that of course would require him to show his tax returns to the NYT attorneys to prove what they published is false. If its not false, its not libel.

How is it well established? Has the publishing of such information happened before?

Edit: apparenty it happened with Nixon. But was it litigated? I get that there is media precedent for aquiring and leaking private and even classified information, but where is the establish LAW?

 

[chuckiechan]

Huh? Same logic applies here. It's already been pretty well known that Trump had been avoiding paying taxes (heck, he had said it himself in Hillary debate) and this is just a confirmation of the same.
Just what Trump and GOP and the press did with DNC emails. Nothing new here.

This entire conversation is why politicians taxes are not released. Everyone has an opinion, and no one is a corporate tax attorney with 100 lbs of documents in front of them, preparing for a sit down with tne IRS to avoid court, where IRS almost always loses! (In reality, the negotiate a fair resolution) It is a sad byproduct created by a life of “doing” rather than a career on the public teat.

This ain’t Turbo-Tax, Sonny.

It is just one more shit splatter by discredited shit splatterers, that no one listens to anymore.

 

[noonereal]

Certainly its biased.

How on earth is it biased? It would be biased if it were withheld. It is the job of the news media to get to truths not easily discovered.

 

[BlueTex]

How is it well established? Has the publishing of such information happened before?

Yep...

Jack White of the Providence Journal-Bulletin got a copy of Nixon's tax returns in 1973. He wrote the story and when asked about the story Nixon responded with this famous line, "People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I am not a crook."

PS... The story was that Nixon only paid $792.81 in federal taxes in 1970. That's $42.81 more than Donald Trump paid in 2016 and 2017.

Jack White was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 1974 for the reporting and never revealed his sources.

Jack White (reporter) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[chuckiechan]

Yep...

Jack White of the Providence Journal-Bulletin got a copy of Nixon's tax returns in 1973. He wrote the story and when asked about the story Nixon responded with this famous line, "People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I am not a crook."

PS... The story was that Nixon only paid $792.81 in federal taxes in 1970. That's $42.81 more than Donald Trump paid in 2016 and 2017.

Jack White was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 1974 for the reporting and never revealed his sources.

Jack White (reporter) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I could not care less about President Trump’s taxes.....I mean it’s not like he received $3.5 Million from the wife of the Mayor of Moscow!

 

[Slavister]

This entire conversation is why politicians taxes are not released. Everyone has an opinion, and no one is a corporate tax attorney with 100 lbs of documents in front of them, preparing for a sit down with tne IRS to avoid court, where IRS almost always loses! (In reality, the negotiate a fair resolution) It is a sad byproduct created by a life of “doing” rather than a career on the public teat.

This ain’t Turbo-Tax, Sonny.

It is just one more shit splatter by discredited shit splatterers, that no one listens to anymore.

First, I don't know why you replied to me since what you said does not address what you quoted.

Second, this was about Trump's personal taxes, not corporate taxes.

 

[Airyaman]

Is it ethical?
Is it legal?

Certainly its biased. I dont think anyone can seriously challenge the idea that The NYT supports liberalism and is using the paper to influence the election. I think its also unethical. Just read the SPJ code of ethics and you can see many of their codes violated.

SPJ Code of Ethics - Society of Professional Journalists

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.

www.spj.org

Legality is a gray area. The press is certainly free, but people also have a right to privacy. Private citizens, much less public officials have very little ability to fight people who buy ink by the barrel. I wouldnt put it past the NYT to encourage leaking of private information, but theres no evidence of it. The NYT wont provide the leaked documents to protect their sources. So their covering up a criminal act at the least, to further their own political goals. Then publishing private information in order to harm the reputation of a person who has a right to private person is likely slander, but again, the press is free. So, I dont know. Its unlikely anyone will be punished for this, and if Trump wins, it wont have mattered. Even if he loses, hes still rich and powerful, more than the NYT.

Yuge problem here fella...they didn't publish his tax returns.

 

[BlueTex]

I could not care less about President Trump’s taxes.....I mean it’s not like he received $3.5 Million from the wife of the Mayor of Moscow!

Oh, we know you will vote for him no matter what...

 

[jonny5]

Just what Trump and GOP and the press did with DNC emails. Nothing new here.

What did Trump and GOP do with DNC email? I know wikileaks acquired their emails and published them. The hacking is certainly illegal, but publishing communications is a lot different than federal tax information.

 

[jonny5]

Yuge problem here fella...they didn't publish his tax returns.

Youre right bro. They published information from them without providing proof. Im giving them the benefit of assuming what they publish is factual.

 

[Airyaman]

Youre right bro. They published information from them without providing proof. Im giving them the benefit of assuming what they publish is factual.

So that means they have no legal liabilities.

 

[Slavister]

What did Trump and GOP do with DNC email? I know wikileaks acquired their emails and published them. The hacking is certainly illegal, but publishing communications is a lot different than federal tax information.

Trump waved and press published stolen internal DNC communications. Now press published (what I assume is) data from stolen tax returns which are in fact Trump communications with IRS. I know you want to differentiate this, but I am sure if there is any law violations in this case, Trump will happily sue NYT. We already had examples of earlier publications of some Trump returns in the past (much smaller subset) but no lawsuits had come out of it back then either.

 

[lwf]

Is it ethical?
Is it legal?

Certainly its biased. I dont think anyone can seriously challenge the idea that The NYT supports liberalism and is using the paper to influence the election. I think its also unethical. Just read the SPJ code of ethics and you can see many of their codes violated.

SPJ Code of Ethics - Society of Professional Journalists

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.

www.spj.org

Legality is a gray area. The press is certainly free, but people also have a right to privacy. Private citizens, much less public officials have very little ability to fight people who buy ink by the barrel. I wouldnt put it past the NYT to encourage leaking of private information, but theres no evidence of it. The NYT wont provide the leaked documents to protect their sources. So their covering up a criminal act at the least, to further their own political goals. Then publishing private information in order to harm the reputation of a person who has a right to private person is likely slander, but again, the press is free. So, I dont know. Its unlikely anyone will be punished for this, and if Trump wins, it wont have mattered. Even if he loses, hes still rich and powerful, more than the NYT.

Shouldn't voters have a right to know if Donald Trump's massive amount of debt could constitute a conflict of interest before they vote in the upcoming presidential election?

 

[joko104]

Jack White won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on Nixon's tax returns... The NYT doesn't have to disclose squat...

Jack White (reporter) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Then there is no reason to believe it for all the lies the NYT publishes.

 

[joko104]

Youre right bro. They published information from them without providing proof. Im giving them the benefit of assuming what they publish is factual.

Why?

 

[BlueTex]

Then there is no reason to believe it for all the lies the NYT publishes.

Trump could show us the story is false by showing us the last page of his 1040... Let me know when he does...