How do you handle covering a candidacy that’s primarily a publicity stunt by a crazed ego and presshound—one with approximately zero chance of success—without lending undue credit to it?
The Los Angeles Times shows one way today with a smart angle: Donald Trump’s rich history of milking taxpayers for hundreds of millions of dollars for his gold-plated skyscrapers.
This is a really good lede:
Donald Trump, the developer and would-be presidential candidate, portrays himself as a swashbuckling entrepreneur, shrewder and tougher than any politician, who would use his billionaire’s skills to restore discipline to the federal government.
In his disdain of big government, however, Trump glances over an expensive irony: He built his empire in part through government largesse and connections.
Well, having covered the real estate business for a few years, I can assure you there’s no such thing as a developer who has built an empire without government largesse and connections. That probably should have been a “to be sure” here.
But the LAT shows that Trump has been particularly egregious, not to mention indiscreet, about it, bragging about misleading public officials to get deals.
First, we’d have never heard of Donald Trump if he hadn’t inherited the $250 million fortune his father built off government-subsidized housing. But the Times points out that his first big Manhattan deal was to renovate the Hyatt at Grand Central Station. For that project, he got a forty-year fullproperty-tax incentive, which cost taxpayers $60 million (presumably not adjusted for inflation) in the first ten years alone, according to the paper.
The LAT details how Trump has also won benefits that cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars in Las Vegas, Atlantic City, and Florida. If anything, it feels like the paper should have found more examples of sweetheart deals that benefited Trump and his wealthy tenants at the expense of the public. It says up high that “many of his projects remain shielded from view,” but is that really true? I’ve never known a Trump anything to be “shielded from view.” At the least, the Times should have explained what it means here a bit more.
Trump is undeniably newsworthy right now early in the 2012 race, where he has pulled near 20 percent of GOP primary voters in some early polls and led the race. But he’s always been an irrestistible character for the press—a throwback to the time before the ascendance of public relations, before the ascendance of public relations muted color and tycoons weren’t yet trained in the art of talking to reporters while really saying nothing. This quote, for instance, is simply great copy:
Referring to how he managed to win a 40-year tax abatement for rebuilding a crumbling hotel at Grand Central Station — a deal that in the first decade cost taxpayers $60 million — Trump said, “Someone said, ‘How come you got 40 years.’ I said, ‘Because I didn’t ask for 50.’ “
This quote is chuckle-worthy, too:
“When I work for myself, I try to make the maximum profit,” he said. “If I run [for president] and if I win, I will no longer care about myself. I’ll be doing the same kind of things for this country.”
Unfortunately, the paper does a poor job of promoting the story on its website. This is a good piece of enterprise reporting, surely more important (not to mention maybe more clickable) than two of the top three stories on the home page right now, which are “Cannes is living up to the hype this year” and “Lohan pleads no contest to jewelry theft.” It’s not even on the business section’s landing page. I wouldn’t have seen it if not for Twitter.

The real beauty story on Trump is in today's NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/nyregion/feeling-deceived-over-homes-that-were-trump-in-name-only.html?hp
They have a look at the Trump University phenom.
What no one has done yet, though, is examine how & why Trump has any credibility with anyone, anywhere. The way the dude presents, everything about him that is not sleazy is fraudulent. So why, after 30 years of this, is his name of any value?
Answer that riddle & you'll have the keys to the White House, and anyplace else you want. One suspects that the PR folks know very well.
#1 Posted by edward ericson jr., CJR on Fri 13 May 2011 at 10:16 AM
Agreed, Ed.
#2 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Fri 13 May 2011 at 12:07 PM
"What no one has done yet, though, is examine how & why Trump has any credibility with anyone, anywhere..."
LOL! Great question!
Of course The Donald is just monkeying around with liberals... Plucking the puppet strings to get a reaction. He's a joke candidate and I think he knows it more than anyone else.
But the reason he resonates with the public is obvious - because, unlike the sycophantic press, he isn't afraid to stick it to Obama.
Where was Obama's birth certificate? Where are Obama's grades? His medical records? His (former?) cocaine dealer? How and why did Obama launch his political career in the living room of a Weather Underground terrorist?
These are the types of issues that Trump isn't afraid to thrust upon the press and you guys wonder why he's credible?
Perhaps if one of you "professional journalists" would track down Obama's coke dealer, or his Occidental or Columbia transcripts, then we would be asking ourselves "why didn't anyone examine how & why Obama (a half-term freshman Senator who never signed a paycheck in his life) had any credibility with anyone, anywhere" before the election?
Hop to it!
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 13 May 2011 at 01:09 PM
Then there's Trump's history of lying about both his personal net worth and the size of his business empire. Back in the 1990s, Business Week deconstructed his balance sheet, showing that Trump's liabilities were vastly understated and assets vastly ... well, you get the picture. He brought a couple of goons to the office, where Steve Shepard told him to get lost.
#4 Posted by Joan Warner, CJR on Fri 13 May 2011 at 04:15 PM
Wayne Barrett, then of the Village Voice, was years ahead of everyone else in exposing the facade of Trump, including the 40-year tax abatement deal.
I'll claim second place, having in April 1990 demonstrated from his own records that he was not a billionaire, in June that he always had a negative investment in Atlantic City (borrowing more money out than he put in there), that he stiffed contractors left and right and then in August this lede on a piece stripped across the top of the front page of The Philadelphia Inquirer:
You may well be worth more than Donald Trump.
The supposed billionaire Donald Trump's actual net worth was NEGATIVE $295 million, official documents showed.
That morning other reporters at a New Jersey Casino Control Commission hearing asked me why an abrupt break was taken. I said that when testimony resumed the witness would say that Trump was within 24 hours of uncontrolled bankruptcy unless the commission approved the private, universal reorganization of Trump debts worked out by about 70 banks. But why the break, one asked. Because, I said, they had to work out the exact language to make sure the witness did not say the word “bankruptcy” and decide what to do if a commissioner, mostly like W. David Waters, used that word in a question.
Minutes later the witness, lawyer Thomas Cerabino, retuned to thw witness chair, but it was not Trump’s lawyer asking the questions, but a state gaming enforcement lawyer, a most curious state of affairs. As predicted, Cerabino carefully avoided using the word "bankruptcy" as he opined that absent commission approval within one day ''the banks will move apart and take whatever steps they think are appropriate to protect their interests."
The next morning only The Inquirer reported this, again atop the masthead:
TRUMP EMPIRE COULD COLLAPSE TODAY, CASINO PANEL TOLD
My piece cited an official report warning of uncontrolled bankruptcy, describing all but one Trump property as “cash-draining assets” and cited numerous unnamed bankers, lawyers, accountants and investment advisers agreeing that Trump’s empire was within one day of collapse.
Before the hearings resumed that morning a Trump lawyer told the other reporters that I got it wrong. Some of them asked me what I was going to do to correct it. One of them told me I must have it wrong because Cerabino never said "bankruptcy." One asked me how one writes a correction for a mistake of that size. Another asked if I was going to be fired for embarrassing my paper.
As my fourth daughter’s favorite t-shirt says (in ancient Greek): idiots
This fog of journalistic ignorance is what Trump relies on when he runs phony campaigns for president in a bid to draw a reality show audience to prop up his cash flow (not wealth creation) machine while injecting racism, hatred and palpably false accusations about Obama’s place of birth and education into the minds of millions. That faux campaign was intended to run until the day NBC had to announce it was renewing Trump’s contract. It did.
Kudos to the LATimes, Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC and Justin Elliott of Salon, as well as Serge Kovaleski in the NYTimes a few years back, for real news reports based on facts, not fantasy, showing that dross lies beneath the patina of Trump glitter.
Shame on the idiot reporters and pundits who told readers, listeners and viewers that Trump was a real candidate, including a those who said it was no more implausible for Trump to become president than Carter or Obama. And shame on their editors and producers if they do not haul them in and roundly tell them to stop damaging the franchise by treating nonsense as news.
#5 Posted by David Cay Johnston, CJR on Tue 17 May 2011 at 02:59 PM