You betcha
In her newsletter today, Margaret Sullivan discusses the astonishing fact that media organizations are sitting on a trove of hacked emails from the Trump campaign and refusing to publish them, in stark contrast to their behavior in 2016 when they eagerly pounced on similarly hacked emails from the Clinton campaign. She asks herself, what if it these were hacked emails from the Biden or Harris campaign. Would they be similarly protected?
A group of well-known journalists got together last week to kick this topic around at the behest of Steve Adler, the former top editor of Reuters who now runs an ethics initiative at NYU. Adler moderated a panel including Ben Smith of Semafor who — when he was the editor of BuzzFeed News — famously published the so-called Steele dossier. That dossier was full of unverified and in some cases salacious information about Trump, much of which has turned out to be untrue. The other panelists were Sewell Chan, the new editor of Columbia Journalism Review, and Kathleen Carroll, the former executive editor of the Associated Press.
These media bigwigs agreed, in general, that the standard for publication of hacked information has to be true newsworthiness. In other words, does the public need to know what’s in documents that come from such a tainted source? Smith, though, said he has a strong (and, I would add, well-proven) tendency to go ahead and publish, reasoning that the press shouldn’t be in the business of keeping secrets.
Maybe the media really has learned something from mistakes made that helped get Trump elected. But I’m aware of precious little soul-searching about 2016 campaign coverage — particularly the way Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server was vastly and damagingly overplayed. There have been even fewer admissions of wrong-doing or plans for reform, at least that I’m aware of.
So, while I’d like to think that what we’re seeing in the media’s silence about the Iran hacks is mostly “lesson learned,” I’m not convinced. That’s probably one element, with the lack of urgent newsworthiness a bigger part, combined with a desire — however unacknowledged, even to themselves — to avoid inflaming right-wing criticism.
I have absolutely no doubt they would find a reason to publish them. They would rationalize that people don’t really know enough about Harris or that Biden has not been available to the press so they simply have to do whatever is necessary to inform the public.
I think there is a lot to the idea that they are afraid of being called liberal — an old story. And this rationalization from Tara Palmieri at Puck is instructive:
Is this a Reverse Podesta situation? Who knows. The reality is that the media has become more responsible with hacked information, and frankly, it’s hard to imagine anything about Trump that would move the needle post January 6, post-bankruptcies, post-Access Hollywood, post-E. Jean Carroll, post-indictments, post-Arlington, and even after the dog-eating and baby-executing bit.
Since when is their news judgment dependent on what “moves the needle?” By making decisions based on the fact that with Trump “nothing matters” they are moving the needle.
I have no idea if the hacked emails contain anything important. But I do know that the media hugely benefited Trump when they published the DNC emails and turned “butheremails” into the overwhelming theme of the 2016 campaign. And now it seems they are helping the Trump campaign again. Can they not see how this looks to their readers?