The Liberal Media Myth Takes Another Hit
On hacks and different treatment for Clinton and Trump.
![](https://otb.cachefly.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/media-journalism-news-newspaper-tablet-phone-1000x562-570x320.jpg)
Via Politico: We received internal Trump documents from ‘Robert.’ Then the campaign confirmed it was hacked.
On July 22, POLITICO began receiving emails from an anonymous account. Over the course of the past few weeks, the person — who used an AOL email account and identified themselves only as “Robert” — relayed what appeared to be internal communications from a senior Trump campaign official. A research dossier the campaign had apparently done on Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, which was dated Feb. 23, was included in the documents. The documents are authentic, according to two people familiar with them and granted anonymity to describe internal communications. One of the people described the dossier as a preliminary version of Vance’s vetting file.
The research dossier was a 271-page document based on publicly available information about Vance’s past record and statements, with some — such as his past criticisms of Trump — identified in the document as “POTENTIAL VULNERABILITIES.” The person also sent part of a research document about Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who was also a finalist for the vice presidential nomination.
No doubt many readers will find it frustrating (if not outrageous) that the hack of Trump’s campaign is being treated differently than the hack of Clinton’s campaign in 2016. On a visceral level, I get it.
On a dispassionate level, I agree with Scott Lemieux at LGM.
there obviously can’t be a bright line rule that illegally obtained information provided by ratfuckers can’t be covered, but there should be a rigorous bar to ensure that the communications are genuinely newsworthy and a careful evaluation of why the emails are being leaked and for what purpose.
Of course, Scott also notes that it just so happens that the current approach favors Trump and that the approach in 2016 also favored Trump.
Regardless of the broader discussion, it is yet another piece of evidence that the media is not the liberal, in-the-Democrats-pocket, tool that many claim it to be. (And also a reminder that one media outlet is not the whole of the media–one wonders if “Robert” tried other outlets as well).
I also suspect that the leaked documents weren’t really all that interesting else Politico would not have been able to resist the story. (I mean, one suspects that the research on Vance, for example, isn’t much different than what is publicly known. Indeed, the real story might well be that they did any research on Vance at all, or that having done so, they picked him anyway).
100% this. I have seen analysis suggesting that any controversial communications don’t happen via email for exactly those reasons. Most operatives in all sides have switched to signal or other methods that are more secure.
This is also in keeping with the recommendations of the Project 2025 training videos which advise against engaging in activities that create a paper trail that can easily be requested or leaked.
One other consideration with 2016 was that so much was also being dumped into WikiLeaks, which created an incentive to tell the story as quickly as possible so as not to be scooped.
Iran, if you’re listening…
Indeed. Much easier to be virtuous in the absence of temptation. However, it’s not unprecedented for the press to very responsibly not publish hacked information. Back in 2016 both campaigns were hacked. We never heard much from the Republican side of the hack.
So far, this is so pointless as to call into question whether it’s really the Iranians, or another foreign interest.
There’s some speculation out there that this is a deliberate effort by the GOP to create questions about the integrity of the election in November so it can be thrown to the house (where Trump wins). Foreign interference, dead voters, ballot harvesting, etc. etc. etc. All part of an effort to justify tossing out the votes…
“Of course, Scott also notes that it just so happens that the current approach favors Trump and that the approach in 2016 also favored Trump.”
Scott Lemieux’s full comment, from his post which was linked in the main post above, included an additional point:
“I think it’s worth noting here that when Amy Chozick (to her credit) was one of the few prominent political journalists to retrospectively question the wisdom of the uncritical feeding frenzy around the Assange/GRU provided emails in 2016, her colleagues angrily insisted that they had done nothing wrong. If there’s now a consensus that the coverage of the hacked emails was in fact seriously botched in 2016, it sure is “interesting” that 1) this consensus was apparently reached in private and 2) conveniently revealed only when it would favor Trump rather than his opponent!”
If the standards have changed, a discussion of in what way and why, and a public discussion of how those standards would have applied to 2016 would be useful.
I struggle to understand the motivations and internal machinations of the supposedly liberal MSM, specifically NYT. WAPO seems desperate to become profitable, combined with a concern for Jeff Bezos taxes. NYT is more of a puzzle. They are often very good, but they also very often go full FTFNYT, as they did for months over Joe Biden’s age.
I think part of it is they agree with Walter Lippman,
Sounds a lot like Plato’s philosopher kings. NYT see themselves as the voice of the makers and shakers, the real elite, and like Lippman, or a WWI general, their job is to get the masses to do what they’re told. This analysis elides that the wealthy and powerful have special interests other than “locality”.
Unlike FOX, NYT still feels some need to report the news and anchor to facts and reality, which constrains any impulse to go full Quisling.
Like WAPO, I suspect the Ochs/Sultzberger family’s taxes play a role.
@Moosebreath: I’ve long lost count of the number of instances I’ve seen where NYT changed a story, especially headlines, in response to criticism, without noting the change. I feel sorry for dead tree readers who don’t see the changes and can’t see counter-arguments in comments.
Part the 57th in our ongoing series.. “The Media Is Liberal” is fact-free propaganda from conservatives.
Note, of course, that most newspapers are conservative-leaning.
If you’re not going to read the link…. Nobody should be shocked to learn that “the media is liberal” was started by Barry Goldwater during his months of whining about how bad he was about to get beat by LBJ.