At least three major news outlets, including Politico, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, have been leaked confidential materials from inside Donald Trump’s campaign, including a report that vetted JD Vance as a potential vice presidential candidate. Despite receiving this sensitive information, each outlet has chosen not to disclose the specific details of what they obtained.
These media organizations have instead focused on reporting about the potential breach of the Trump campaign and have described the materials they received only in broad terms. This approach contrasts sharply with the 2016 presidential campaign, when a Russian hack led to the exposure of emails related to Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta. The website Wikileaks published these emails, leading mainstream news outlets to cover the content extensively.
Politico reported over the weekend that it began receiving emails on July 22 from an individual identified only as “Robert.” These emails included a 271-page campaign document about JD Vance and a partial vetting report on Senator Marco Rubio, who was also considered as a possible vice president. Both Politico and The Washington Post stated that two sources independently confirmed the authenticity of these documents.
The New York Times described the Vance report, noting that “like many such vetting documents, they contained past statements with the potential to be embarrassing or damaging, such as Mr. Vance’s remarks casting aspersions on Mr. Trump.”
The source of the leaked materials remains unknown. Politico reported that it did not know the identity of “Robert,” and when they communicated with the supposed leaker, he advised them not to inquire about the origins of the documents.
The Trump campaign claimed that it had been hacked and suggested that Iranian agents were behind the breach. However, the campaign has not provided any evidence to support this assertion. This accusation surfaced a day after a Microsoft report outlined an attempt by an Iranian military intelligence unit to compromise the email account of a former senior advisor to a presidential campaign, though the report did not specify which campaign was targeted.
Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Trump’s campaign, stated over the weekend, “any media or news outlet reprinting documents or internal communications are doing the bidding of America’s enemies.”
On Monday, the FBI released a brief statement confirming that they are investigating the matter.
The New York Times declined to discuss the reasons behind its decision not to publish the details of the internal communications. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for The Washington Post commented, “As with any information we receive, we take into account the authenticity of the materials, any motives of the source, and assess the public interest in making decisions about what, if anything, to publish.”
Brad Dayspring, a spokesperson for Politico, explained that the editors there determined “the questions surrounding the origins of the documents and how they came to our attention were more newsworthy than the material that was in those documents.”
In fact, it didn’t take long after Vance was announced as Trump’s running mate for various news outlets to uncover unflattering statements that the Ohio senator had made about Trump.
Reflecting on the 2016 campaign, it’s easy to recall how candidate Trump and his team eagerly encouraged media coverage of documents related to the Clinton campaign that Wikileaks had obtained from hackers. The coverage was widespread: for instance, a BBC story highlighted “18 revelations from Wikileaks’ hacked Clinton emails,” and Vox even detailed Podesta’s advice on making superb risotto.
At that time, Brian Fallon, a spokesperson for the Clinton campaign, remarked on how quickly the initial concern about Russian hacking gave way to a fascination with the content of the emails. “Just like Russia wanted,” he noted.
Unlike the current situation, the Wikileaks material in 2016 was made publicly available, creating significant pressure on news organizations to publish. This led to some regrettable decisions, as in certain cases, outlets misrepresented some of the material to be more damaging to Clinton than it actually was, according to Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania who authored “Cyberwar,” a book about the 2016 hacking.
Jamieson believes that news organizations have made the right decision this year not to publish details from the Trump campaign materials because they cannot be certain of the source. “How do you know that you’re not being manipulated by the Trump campaign?” she questioned, adding that she takes a cautious approach to publishing decisions “because we’re in the misinformation age.”
Thomas Rid, director of the Alperovitch Institute for Cybersecurity Studies at Johns Hopkins, also agrees that the news outlets made the correct choice, but for different reasons. He believes that an effort by a foreign agent to influence the 2024 presidential campaign is more newsworthy than the leaked material itself.
However, some journalists believe that the media could have done more. Jesse Eisinger, a senior reporter and editor at ProPublica, suggested that the outlets could have provided more insight than they did. While he acknowledged that many of Vance’s past statements about Trump are easily accessible, he argued that the vetting document could have revealed which statements were of most concern to the campaign or disclosed information that journalists were previously unaware of.
Once the accuracy of the material is confirmed, Eisinger believes that newsworthiness should take precedence over the source. “I don’t think they handled it properly,” he said, adding, “I think they overlearned the lesson of 2016.”
