As we near the RNC, the rise in ridiculousness of American election coverage is not only positive -- it is exponential. Accusations of tax fraud, KKK leader endorsements, sketchy emails, rally riots, and making fun of each others’ wives have all become run-of-the-mill for this year's candidates on both sides of the partisan spectrum, but GOP media coverage has been particularly explosive. This week, the campaign gods blessed us with arguably the most baffling, entertaining, and vomit-inducing development yet: the #CruzSexScandal.
What’s going on?
The hashtag started trending on Wednesday, March 23 when the infamous tabloid National Enquirer released an “exclusive” story claiming Texas Senator Ted Cruz is hiding sexual affairs with five women other than his wife, Heidi Cruz.
What’s interesting about this claim (other than the story itself) is the timing of its release. For about a week prior to the story, Cruz and Trump had been firing back and forth via Twitter about a subject decidedly not related to policy or political agendas: their wives.
Earlier last week, SuperPAC "Make America Awesome" released a controversial ad encouraging Utah voters to vote Cruz in their upcoming primary. The ad featured an old picture of Trump’s wife, Melania, posing nude for a 2000 GQ photo shoot.
Many initially thought the ad came from Cruz affiliates, or maybe even members of his campaign. However, Make America Awesome has no known affiliation with Ted Cruz. They aren’t necessarily pro-Cruz; they’re just anti-Trump.
Despite these facts, Trump immediately responded with this tweet, threatening to “spill the beans” and attack Cruz’s wife, Heidi, as a form of retaliation. He then deleted it, but then decided to tweet it again, sticking to his guns.
After some more back and forth, Trump retweeted this image, attacking Heidi Cruz’s appearance.
Cruz responded pretty amicably, seemingly taking the high road out of campaign smear hell.
And then, on March 23, the National Enquirer dropped their illustrious “exclusive.”
Ted accused Donald of planting and perpetuating the story. Trump denied having anything to do with it. Kasich is still out there somewhere, I think.
That’s basically what’s happened so far. What a mess.
So now that we know what's going on (kind of), a few questions need to be addressed.
1. Why did this particular story get so much traction?
The Enquirer reports dozens of ridiculous stories every day. Why did this story catch fire so quickly, and why isn’t it going away?
I’ve seen a concerning amount of people making the argument, “Well hey, the Enquirer was right about O.J., John Edwards, and Tiger Woods. They’ve been right before! They could be right this time too!”
Let me make something incandescently clear: the threshold of a publication’s integrity shouldn’t be that they’ve been right a mere handful of times. Journalism isn’t a “hit-or-miss” activity. A publication’s journalistic integrity comes from their validity and reliability. When you argue that the Enquirer has been correct about .3 percent of scandals they’ve "broken," you’re completely ignoring the fact that 99.7 percent of their claims have no factual basis. You wouldn't say, "Oh, Joe's great at his job. He shows up for work three days of the year!"
It doesn’t matter if they were right about O.J., John Edwards, or Tiger Woods. The National Enquirer is a tabloid, and therefore not required to uphold any journalistic ethical code or practice. To take an “exclusive,” such as this one, and accept it as fact is to completely ignore any shred of reality or common sense. Period.
2. If the story is true, who in the name of Birdie Sanders would break this story to The National Enquirer?
If you had this kind of factual, real, devastating dirt on such a prominent figure, why not take it to a credible publication that would pay you a substantial sum of money? Why break it to a tabloid and wait for it to circulate through social media instead of selling it to mainstream networks?
The most likely reason is that the story doesn't have factual basis. A respectable publication obviously won't release such a damning story if it can't be proven, or even substantially supported.
If the story is true, it's possible the person or people releasing it were going for maximum exposure. It’s easier to believe something if nearly everyone is talking about it, even if that "something" sounds completely ludicrous. In our society, sex sells, and social media drives global conversation. People are more likely to see something scandalous that's circulating on Twitter rather than if it were reported on CNN.
3. Why are so many people believing this?
#CruzSexScandal is meant to be an exposé on Ted Cruz's true character. I think it better serves as a case study on the American public's disgusting habit of believing literally everything they see, especially if they see it on a screen.
I'm not particularly emotionally invested in this story, so I decided to scroll down and read the comments on the Enquirer's online release.
My jaw hit the floor.
When reading any kind of news content, an individual’s very first reaction should be, “Who is reporting this? Where is it coming from?” Once a source is identified, you should then be looking for any and every factual basis to support the story. If it’s not reported by a credible source and there are no reasonable claims to back it up, it’s straight garbage. Everything in a tabloid is a lie until a credible source proves otherwise. I'm completely taken aback at the amount of people I've seen online in the last 72 hours who apparently do not understand this.
All things considered, I personally don't think an alleged affair is totally relevant to Cruz's ability to potentially run a nation. However, the "scandal" is certainly continuing to develop in the political sphere. For the sake of inquisitiveness, there are some interesting things to note as the muddled, messy story progresses:
1. Trump's connections to the National Enquirer: they openly endorsed him about two weeks ago. Many have known CEO David Pecker and Trump to be close friends for many years.
2. NY Mag reporter Gabriel Sherman apparently claimed that Pecker told his staff to not run any negative articles on Donald Trump.
3. Ted Cruz's campaign paid an unexpected sum of $500,000 to Carly Fiorina's campaign in June. Some people believe this sum acted as a cover-up, given that one of the accused "mistresses" is a former employee on Fiorina's campaign.
4. Former columnist for the Washington Post Drew Johnson tweeted that he can confirm two of the five alleged mistresses.
If this story is true, fine. My sincerest condolences to Heidi Cruz and her children for the exploitative actions of the American press. But the validity of this story is so beyond the point I'm trying to make. I'm not trying to persuade you to believe if it is or isn't true. To be completely candid, I don't care.
What we should all be concerned with is the fact that thousands of people are taking this at face value and not looking any further to decide whether or not a salacious story printed in one of the least-trusted American tabloids holds a single fiber of truth. That's a kind of collective naivety we can't afford when we're facing such a critical national crossroads.
A society that automatically believes everything they’re told is a society susceptible to corruption. We’re already seeing it in a lot of other ways throughout this election cycle, but that, I think, is another piece for another day.
