Trumpsters suddenly forget 2016 and urge media to not publish leaked documents

Unlike in 2016, when US media organizations avidly covered a trove of embarrassing emails stolen from Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, they are now choosing not to publicize materials stolen from Donald Trump’s campaign. Why?

Last Friday, MIcrosoft said in a report that Iranian hackers tried to penetrate an account of an official with one of the presidential campaigns.

No details were given but the very next day, the Trump campaign announced it had been hacked – but not before Politico reported that it recently began receiving emails from an anonymous “Robert”, containing documents from Trump’s camp.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is now on the case. Iran is suspected by both the Feds and the Trump campaign, although Tehran denies having anything to do with the hack.

There are two just as serious questions, though. First, why are Trump’s minions, who were so eager for the media to publish the hacked emails about Clinton’s campaign in 2016, now preaching caution?

“Any media or news outlet reprinting documents or internal communications are doing the bidding of America’s enemies and doing exactly what they want,” Steven Cheung, the campaign’s communications director, said in a statement on Saturday.

Trump himself cheered the idea of publicizing hacked documents in 2016 and said during a press conference when Clinton’s deleted emails were a viral topic: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you are able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.”

undefinedRussia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails.”

Eight years ago, Trump asked Russia to hack into Hillary Clinton’s emails. Now Trump claims his campaign has been hacked by Iranians. Could be karma. Could be another Trump lie.pic.twitter.com/iaSzEqR1X7

undefined Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) August 10, 2024

Second, why are media organizations choosing to sit on the documents they have received from the hacker? The very real possibility that WikiLeaks – a group that published the Clinton emails eight years ago – was working with Russia didn’t stop them then. Why should the involvement of Iran make them pause now?

At least three influential news outlets received confidential material from inside Trump’s campaign, including its detailed report vetting JD Vance as a potential vice presidential candidate.

However, so far, each organization has refused to reveal any details about what’s actually in the documents. Instead, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico have written about the very fact of a suspected hack – and that’s it.

Suffice to say, the contrast is huge, and some observers are indeed unhappy. Nick Merrill who was a spokesperson for Clinton’s 2016 campaign told Associated Press when asked if he thought stolen materials should be published: “A precedent has been set here.”

Of course, the documents might still be published during the remaining months until the presidential election – there’s that famous concept of “October surprise.”

But for now, news outlets seem more eager to avoid another long debate about foreign interference in American elections. Another key difference is that in 2016, the WikiLeaks material was dumped into the public domain – this increased the pressure on news organizations to publish.

“All of the news organizations in this case took a deep breath and paused, and thought about who was likely to be leaking the documents, what the motives of the hacker might have been, and whether this was truly newsworthy or not,” said The Washington Post’s executive editor Matt Murray.

Still, Ben Smith, the editor-in-chief of Semafor, a news website, quickly remarked on X that the news outlets should own up to past mistakes and admit: “We screwed up last time.”

This is a reasonable call (esp if the contents are random clip jobs) but the explanation has gotta included, undefinedwe screwed up last time.undefined https://t.co/QVM4BCf20L

undefined Ben Smith (@semaforben) August 13, 2024

“Hopefully (seriously) Trump will benefit from what the media learned in 2016, when it got played by state-sponsored hackers into publishing a drip-drip of Clinton information on the hackers' schedule,” Smith added.

“Which is to say – journalists can/should report seriously on real documents that shed light on real stories, but should also foreground the hackers' motives and not publish personal information gratuitously. And, in general, not treat a drip-drip of random documents as hot scoops.”