Aug.16

electoral-vote.com

Dem 51

   

GOP 49

The Media: What's with the DeLay in Publishing the Purloined Documents?

The news broke over the weekend that the Trump campaign had been hacked, and that various outlets, including The Washington Post, The New York Times and Politico, were in possession of some internal campaign documents, including 271 pages' worth of information gathered while vetting J.D. Vance for the VP slot.

Readers will recall that when DNC and Clinton campaign documents leaked in 2016, media outlets fell all over themselves to publish the documents. The same was true on the various occasions when pieces of Donald Trump's tax returns leaked. But this time around, the documents have been in the wild for at least 10 days, and there's been no reporting, other than stories revealing that the documents exist. The Post and Politico have said that, as yet, the information is not "newsworthy" enough to publish. The Times hasn't even said that much.

We do not know exactly what is going on, but we do know the claim about newsworthiness is laughable. With something like the Hunter Biden laptop, then yes, there are arguments either way. But a major-party campaign's vetting of half the ticket? That's very big, indeed. To take just one example, do the 271 pages include the "childless cat ladies" comments? Because if so, that says something about the campaign's attitudes towards women. And if not, it says something about the campaign's vetting process. Either way, it tells voters something important.

Similarly, it might be argued that the major news outlets don't want to print something that is phony, and end up with egg on their collective faces again. In other words, they don't want a Russian dossier v2.0 situation. However, this does not hold water, either. Both the Trump campaign and the FBI have already confirmed the documents are real. So, that question is moot.

We know that some readers believe the media, even the non-right-wing media, is in the bag for the Trump campaign, since Trump attracts eyeballs and sells newspapers. Could be, although that would be pretty corrupt. It would also be risky, since Il Donald is exactly the type of guy who would consider arresting and jailing reporters who were not sufficiently deferential. He's already flirted with that.

Here are our theories as to what might be going on:

• The various outlets are working on stories that will be published eventually, but aren't yet ready to be published now.
  
  
• While the files are broadly legitimate, it's possible they could have had false material inserted, not unlike what happened with the Biden laptop. So, the outlets are working to vet the information, particularly anything that might be defamatory.
  
  
• The materials from 2016 were largely released by Wikileaks, which meant that organization bore most of the legal exposure. In this case, the Times, Post and Politico could end up being the ones who break the law if they publish.
  
  
• Alternatively, these outlets might open themselves up to civil liability, and with a man who would love, love, love to file suit against the "corrupt, left-wing media."

These are just guesses, of course. We also suspect that the files will eventually see the light of day, even if that means their being handed off to Wikileaks or some other outlet less concerned about any potential risks. (Z)