>>The NYT never actually said that it was a nefarious Trump scheme, but the implication was clearly there in the first article.
>>Subsequent articles in the NYT said what you said, but I agree that the gut response from most journalists is to vilify Trump.

In the old days, journalists would have investigated, learned it's a non-story based on contracts signed under previous administrations, and either would have parked it or would have included context. Now there's a rush to print followed by comparitively muted correction.

A couple of years ago, a daughter had a party attended by 17-18-year-olds including scions of the wealthy. We served no alcohol (though we could have- legal for 18-year-olds, or younger kids with parental permission here) but the wealthy kids somehow were drunk requiring an ambulance for one of the girls while the boys had a grand time vomiting inside, tearing taps out of basins, damaging remote controls and stealing electronic gear. Those ones all went to the archetypal rich-kid schools; the boys from Decile 1 (poor) schools behaved as gentlemen. Unfortunately inherited wealth doesn't bring out the best in people, perhaps because the concept that great wealth carries great responsibility, is obsolete. Trump seems to remember it so if you think he's bad, brace yourself for the next lot of vile inheritors.