If you’ve only been getting your news from mainstream television outlets in the past few weeks, you might be surprised to find out that there have been developments in the upcoming presidential election besides Donald Trump’s alleged sexual misconduct. Namely: the steady drip-drip of revelations from Hillary Clinton’s emails has turned into a flood.
WikiLeaks, the organization that made a name for itself by exposing the U.S. military’s killing of two Iraqi journalists in a 2007 air strike, has been releasing hacked emails from Clinton’s campaign head, John Podesta.
And if you’ve only been watching CNN, that’s likely where your understanding ends. The emails detail attempted quid pro quos between the State Department and the FBI, an effort in the State Department to improperly withhold information from Congress, the Clinton Foundation’s pay-to-play arrangements with foreign government officials and “FOBs” (Friends of Bill Clinton), and Hillary Clinton’s private dream of “open markets and open borders,” and more. They also definitively disprove the oft-repeated lie that Clinton didn’t know there was classified material in the emails sent to her private server: She requested a sensitive email be sent without a classification marker in order to get around cybersecurity regulations.
Sifting through all these emails will take time, and some journalists have been hard at work doing so. Others have abdicated, saying the equivalent of “move along, nothing to see here.” Take CNN’s Chris Cuomo. In a brief segment on Podesta’s emails, he said the documents are “illegal to possess,” a rule that’s “different for the media.”
“So everything you learn about this, you’re learning from us,” Cuomo concluded.
First off: no, First Amendment protections for viewing illegally distributed leaks or other materials are not “different for the media.” They apply to everyone equally. But implicit in Cuomo’s bizarre statement is a plea to viewers: Don’t look at these emails for yourself. Trust what we have to say about them, and trust that we aren’t leaving anything out.
Given the amount of time the networks have spent on these emails, it’s hard to believe that’s the case. According to a review by the conservative Media Research Center, ABC, CBS, and NBC spent seven times as much air time on sexual-assault allegations against Trump as they did on WikiLeaks emails. Collectively, these networks spent about half an hour of air time over a week of programming on the emails and mostly haven’t delved into specifics about their content.
Ironically enough, however, the content in these emails makes it clear that Americans shouldn’t trust the media to report on them. Among the revelations: a Politico editor sent a section of an article to Podesta for prior review, a forbidden practice even for student journalists at The Daily Iowan. One Clinton staffer said a journalist now with the New York Times would “tee up” stories for the campaign. Another Times journalist gave the Clinton campaign veto power over quotes in order to get better access to the candidate. CNBC correspondent John Harwood bragged to Podesta about his tough questioning of Trump in a debate and offered advice to the campaign. And CNN commentator Donna Brazile sent a question to be used in an upcoming town hall to the campaign in advance, saying it may cause “problems” for Clinton during the event, given her past positions.
Journalists stumbled over themselves to cover WikiLeaks’ stolen diplomatic cables and Edward Snowden’s leaked trove of NSA programs. Now they’re hesitant to report these revelations that implicate top Clinton staffers and the candidate herself in unethical and possibly illegal practices. I wonder why? Maybe this factoid could be illustrative: Of the several hundred journalists who have donated to a presidential candidate this election cycle, 96 percent have given their money to Clinton, according to the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity.
The mainstream media’s collective refusal to meaningfully cover these emails goes beyond malpractice. This total denial to acknowledge damning evidence of impropriety in a presidential candidate is journalistic gaslighting. The curtain has been pulled back, but most reporters are acting like the exposed machinations are nothing more than business as usual or even that they don’t exist. Pay no attention to the corruption, lies, and malfeasance, citizens. LOOK. OVER THERE. Trump just said something stupid again.
—Nick Hassett
Former DI Opinions editor
