In a surprising turn of events, three prominent news outlets—Politico, The New York Times, and The Washington Post—received leaked confidential material from within the Donald Trump campaign but have chosen not to publish the details. This decision stands in stark contrast to their approach in the 2016 presidential campaign, when hacked emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign were extensively covered following their release by Wikileaks.
The Leaks and Their Contents
The leaked documents, reportedly received by Politico starting July 22, included a 271-page vetting report on Ohio Senator JD Vance as a potential vice presidential candidate and a partial vetting report on Senator Marco Rubio. These documents, which Politico and The Post have confirmed as authentic through independent sources, contain potentially damaging information, including Vance’s past statements critical of Trump.
The Times has described the leaked Vance report as containing “past statements with the potential to be embarrassing or damaging,” reflecting the nature of such internal vetting documents. Despite this, the news organizations have opted to refrain from publishing specific details about the content, focusing instead on the broader context of the leaks.
Uncertainty About the Source
The identity of the leaker remains unclear. Politico reported that the source, identified only as “Robert,” advised against probing the origins of the documents. The Trump campaign has alleged that the breach was the result of a hack by Iranian operatives, although no evidence has been provided to substantiate this claim. The timing of this allegation coincides with a Microsoft report detailing an attempt by an Iranian military intelligence unit to access a former senior advisor’s email, though the report did not specify which campaign was targeted.
Editorial Decisions and Rationale
The decision to withhold the details of the leaked documents has been met with varied reactions. The New York Times declined to comment on its rationale for not publishing the material, while The Washington Post emphasized its consideration of the documents’ authenticity, the source’s motives, and the public interest in its decision-making process. Politico’s spokesperson, Brad Dayspring, explained that the editorial team deemed the questions surrounding the origins of the documents as more significant than the content of the documents themselves.
A Comparison to 2016
The contrasting approach of these news outlets this year is notable when compared to the 2016 election cycle. During that period, the release of emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign, obtained through Russian hacking, was widely covered. Wikileaks’ publication of these emails led to significant media attention and scrutiny. Coverage of the leaked material was extensive, with outlets like the BBC and Vox detailing the contents of the emails, sometimes to the point of sensationalism.
Brian Fallon, then a spokesperson for the Clinton campaign, remarked on the paradox of the situation, noting how concern over Russian hacking shifted to intense focus on the leaked material. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania, highlighted that some media outlets misrepresented the content of the emails to be more damaging than it was, an issue compounded by the chaotic nature of the misinformation era.
More Read
Current Views on Publishing Decisions
In the current context, experts like Kathleen Hall Jamieson argue that the decision to withhold publication of the Trump campaign material was prudent given the uncertain origins of the leaks. She emphasizes caution in an age of misinformation, suggesting that news organizations must carefully evaluate the credibility of their sources to avoid being manipulated.
Thomas Rid, director of the Alperovitch Institute for Cybersecurity Studies, concurs that the focus on the potential foreign influence behind the leaks might be more newsworthy than the details within the documents themselves. He supports the decision to prioritize the investigation of foreign interference over the publication of potentially manipulative leaks.
Conversely, Jesse Eisinger of ProPublica suggests that while the details in the vetting report might be publicly available, the leaked document could have provided insight into which statements concerned the Trump campaign most, or uncovered previously unknown details. He argues that the news outlets might have offered more context on the nature of the leaks without disclosing sensitive content.
The decision by Politico, The New York Times, and The Washington Post to withhold details from the leaked Trump campaign materials reflects a cautious approach amidst concerns about the source and potential manipulation. This stance underscores a broader debate about the responsibilities of news organizations in an era marked by misinformation and cyber threats. As the 2024 election cycle progresses, the implications of these decisions will continue to be closely scrutinized.
