Several weeks ago a handful of big-name news outlets began receiving a trove of documents about J.D. Vance from "Robert," all of which had been hacked from the Trump campaign. So far, though, nobody has published any of it—even though when the same thing happened in 2016 to Hillary Clinton, they eagerly splashed the hacked documents all over their front pages.
Why? Maybe they've learned their lesson? Or maybe it's just plain bias against Democrats.
Maybe. But 15 paragraphs into today's Washington Post's story about this, they finally fess up:
The decision for newsrooms to not publish the Vance materials — a compilation of publicly available records and statements, including Vance’s past criticisms of Trump — appeared to be more straightforward because they also didn’t reach a high level of public interest. “In the end, it didn’t seem fresh or new enough,” [Matt] Murray said.
They haven't learned any lessons. And they learned of the hack's possible Iranian origins only a few days ago, so they haven't suddenly become concerned about foreign interference. They just didn't find anything juicy. If they had, it would be all over the place. There's nothing high-minded about any of this.
But publishing a Podesta email asking about a risotto recipe was newsworthy?
Yes but you have to remember the recipe was actually a secret coded message to request kids for some sort of satanic ritual according to righwingers, so the media had to report that in the interest of public safety. /s
Very little in the Clinton email hack was newsworthy, and yet it got a lot of coverage.
You don't understand. The "trad" media is consistent following the rule they have used since the yellow elevator. If it helps Trump print it. If it hurts Trump, don't print it.
For example, imagine how much her campaign would be over if Harris made a single statement as cray cray as Trump does in every Pravda Social. Or every minute in any one of his rallies.
Didn't WikiLeaks already release (in drips and drabs) the Clinton material? In that case, they were just reporting on what had be released by someone else.
"Look, somebody else robbed that bank and dropped this on the way out, why y'all getting mad at me and saying I shouldn't have picked it up?!"
WikiLeaks, "Robert"@aol.com. What's the difference? They're both "leaks." One was Russian and the other Iranian (we think).
As Kevin pointed out, the actual difference is that the 2016 hacks targeted Dems and so were "newsworthy" whereas anything about Trump, the media just sort of yawns at.
Why haven't they published which "senior official' was compromised in this breach?
They have. It was Roger Stone.
From what I can tell, Roger Stone's account was compromised and used to target a current Trump campaign official.
So much for the liberal media!
Hard not to think if it had been Democrats they'd have found a way to make it juicy, however contrived.
Because then the Democrats would have had to deny it, and then it would be a 'controversy' they could earnestly belabor for weeks.
Journalism Priorities on Stolen Goods
To Publish:
- Shocking details
- Revealing hypocrisy or lying
Not to Publish:
- Boring shit
- Unimportant and trivial things
And that's why stuff on JD Vance wasn't leaked.
ABC ran an article about how Hillary tried to help Haiti but didn’t do nearly as much as she wanted to.
The cited leaked emails and framed it as though Hillary had failed.
Media found 100000000 ways to keep the email story alive.
Clearly there doesn't need to be anything juicy in order for the media to run with it.
See 2016 endless Hillary emails as a clear example. Also, running 'Biden is old' stories while ignoring all of the equally juicy 'Trump is also old' stories.
There is definitely more than 'is it juicy?' at play here. There always is.
The Hillary leaks that really hurt were the ones that fed the resentments of the Sanders side toward the DNC and the Clinton campaign. That's what was "juicy" and what the media chose to emphasize. The others, like risotto recipes, were pretty much irrelevant.
From what it sounds like it was basically a folder filled with press clippings with a little commentary added. The mostly likely story is that the news media didn't think a collection of their old articles with a few comments was worth requoting in new articles.
I read that article earlier this morning. It's pathetic and Kevin is wrong about the defense that they failed to publish because the material wasn't newsworthy. That was never the reason. The hacked Clinton/DNC material in 2016 was no more or less newsworthy and if these hacks occurred to Harris the WaPo would find them to be newsworthy as all hell even if they were just hundreds of pages repeating "All work and no play makes Kamala a dull girl." This argument was merely self-justifying BS (as indeed was almost the entire article).
But Kevin is right that the media has learned exactly noting since 2016 and, though he really just throws it out there rather than arguing it, he is right that this is just more evidence of anti-Democrat bias by the elite media. and another transparent example of their enormous double standard in coverage. Look at Drumpf's loony off-the-rails presser last week. The "journalists" did zero followups or fact checking in real time, ignored or greatly downplayed the nuttiest aspects (even the bizarre helicopter story was treated far too gently and gave him the benefit of the doubt for mixing up his Browns), trotted out their favorite euphemisms for "lie," cleaned up much of the rest to make it appear coherent, and led with the ABC debate news, the closest he came to making actual objective hard news.
Indeed, this is all much worse than 2016. Media coverage then reflected the same double standard in general and their especial disdain for Hillary Clinton in particular. This still applies in 2024 but with an additional sinister, if not terrifying, factor: the media collectively is scared to death to seriously cross Drumpf and MAGA. Willingness to intern millions coupled with extremely unsubtle--and sometimes very overt--threats of violence can work wonders with cowards. Democracy Dies in Darkness. Yeah, right, pull the other one.
Donald didn't mix up the Browns. He mixed up at least two helicopter rides and two Blacks.
Yes, but the initial press reports (at least in the egregious NYT) suggested that he likely mixed up Willie Brown and Jerry Brown, with whom he once did ride in a helicopter. Though to be fair, they did find that pretty ludicrous in a very understated way.
It was the lead story today (9AM EDT) on NPR's Morning Edition.
But Vance seems to be doing a good job of making himself look unfit for public office anyway, so I'm OK if "the press" isn't covering the Iranian-hacked documents.
It's also being reported that the email that was hacked to get the info was Roger Stone, and there's GOTTA be some crazy shit in there. Best case scenario is the contents were provided to the FBI and will be used in criminal prosecutions, but i doubt it. We need someone to leak the leak.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/12/politics/trump-campaign-hack-personal-email-account-fbi/index.html
Let's not forget about the Hunter Biden laptop which contained nothing interesting, magically appeared in Trump's tiny hands and is still being reported on by these same news organizations.
No.
The press (especially the Times) has always despised anything named Clinton. They're viewed as interlopers from a place that isn't a real state and they have no business near power.
Or did we forget the 90's?
This seems a little credulous. Maybe they didn’t find anything juicy, or didn’t find anything they could squeeze hard enough to get some juice out of it. Or maybe they aren’t incentivized to hurt Trump because his staying competitive is good for them. But they can’t say that, so they’re lying.