The art of the headline

Rob Rogers

The editors of the online version of the NY Times have again muddied the waters with today's hed for the story by Michael Rothfeld.

The hard copy has a shorter, punchier hed: Pivotal Question: When Is Hush Money a Crime? It would have been even better without the extraneous "Pivotal Question" intro.

The windier online hed: Private or Political? Charges Over Hush Money Hinge on Payment’s Purpose.

From the story:

For one thing, Ms. Daniels had tried to sell her story of sleeping with Mr. Trump for at least five years, but he had never before agreed to pay for her silence. Mr. Cohen did so weeks before the [2016] election, and days after the so-called “Access Hollywood” tape — in which Mr. Trump was heard talking about groping women — was made public, potentially tanking Mr. Trump’s campaign.

For another, Mr. Trump met with Mr. Cohen and David Pecker, the publisher of The National Enquirer, at the beginning of his campaign in August 2015 to discuss a strategy for bottling up negative stories. 

And Mr. Pecker’s company paid to suppress the story of another woman, the Playboy model Karen McDougal, less than three months before Ms. Daniels received her payment.

Both Mr. Pecker and Mr. Cohen have testified before the grand jury that indicted Mr. Trump, and would be expected to do so at a trial.

Jeff Tsai, a San Francisco lawyer and former federal prosecutor who worked on the [John]Edwards case, said in an interview that because of the “elasticity” of whether money is primarily spent to help a campaign or for personal reasons, the facts in a particular case are extremely important....

Assuming Trump didn't give a shit what his wife and family thought, the timing of the hush money is the significant fact here: just before the 2016 election---which, alas, Trump won---and shortly after the Access Hollywood tape emerged.

See also The Full Stormy Hush-Money Tale Features Plenty of Witnesses Who Could Be Trouble for Trump.