Confidential material from inside the Donald Trump campaign, specifically its report vetting JD Vance as a vice presidential candidate, was leaked to at least three news outlets. However, Politico, The New York Times, and The Washington Post have chosen not to disclose the details of what they received, instead writing about a potential hack of the campaign in general terms.
Comparing this situation to the 2016 presidential campaign, where a Russian hack exposed emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta, these news outlets have taken a different approach. Back then, Wikileaks published the emails, and mainstream news organizations extensively covered the content.
Politico recently reported that they received emails containing a 271-page campaign document about Vance and a partial vetting report on Sen. Marco Rubio. They confirmed the authenticity of these documents with two independent sources. The New York Times mentioned that the vetting documents could contain potentially damaging information, such as Vance’s past remarks about Trump.
Whodunit?
The source of the leaked material remains unknown. The Trump campaign claimed it was hacked by Iranians, but no evidence was provided. Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for the campaign, criticized media outlets reprinting internal communications, accusing them of aiding America’s enemies. The FBI confirmed that they are investigating the matter.
The decision not to publish details of the internal communications was based on authenticity, source motives, and public interest. Some news organizations believed that the origins of the leaked material were more newsworthy than the content itself.
A lesson from 2016?
In 2016, the coverage of hacked documents on the Clinton campaign by Wikileaks generated significant interest. However, concerns about Russian hacking giving way to revealing information were noted. This year, news organizations refrained from publishing the Trump campaign material due to uncertainty about the source and the possibility of manipulation.
While some critics believe the outlets could have shared more information from the vetting document, others argue that newsworthiness and accuracy should take precedence over the source. The handling of the leaked material has sparked debate among journalists and media experts.
Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
