At least three news outlets have obtained classified materials from Donald Trump’s campaign, including a detailed audit report on possible vice presidential candidate JD Vance. However, none of the outlets have chosen to disclose details about the content they received.
According to sources, Politico, the New York Times and the Washington Post prefer to talk instead about a possible campaign security breach, in more general terms reminiscent of the controversy during the 2016 campaign.
During the previous election campaign, a Russian hacker released a large number of emails related to Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta. These documents were published by Wikileaks and attracted a great deal of media attention. In contrast, the current situation has been handled with more discretion.
Politico reported that it had received a series of emails since July 22 from a person named “Robert.” Among the materials was a 271-page document on Vance, as well as an incomplete background check report on Senator Marco Rubio, another vice presidential candidate. Both Politico and the Washington Post confirmed the authenticity of these documents through independent sources.
The New York Times noted that many such vetting documents often contain statements that could potentially damage a candidate’s reputation, citing Vance’s past comments about Trump as an example.
The identity of the person who leaked the documents remains unclear. Politico has stated that there is no information on who “Robert” is. When asked about his source, the alleged leaker specifically advised caution when researching his identity.
The Trump campaign has claimed it was hacked and that the Iranian government was behind the attack, although this claim has not been substantiated. The allegations emerged shortly after a Microsoft report said Iranian military intelligence attempted to compromise the email account of a former senior presidential campaign adviser.
Steven Cheung, a spokesman for the Trump campaign, said any news outlets publishing these internal communications are acting in the interests of America’s enemies.
The FBI confirmed that it is investigating the situation. However, The New York Times has not commented on why it is not publishing details of the internal communications. A representative for The Washington Post said that when evaluating information received, they take into account the authenticity of the material, the motivation of the source and the general public interest.
In response to the leaked documents, Politico officials acknowledged that the questions surrounding the origins of the documents were more important than the content itself. This decision came shortly after Vance was announced as Trump’s vice presidential running mate, prompting various news outlets to take a close look at his past criticism of Trump.
Looking back to 2016, it became clear that Trump and his team encouraged extensive coverage of hacked material from Clinton’s campaign – often with great success. The publications at the time produced sensational stories about the revelations in the hacked emails, thereby distracting from ongoing discussions about Russian interference.
Unlike in 2016, when the hacked material was publicly available, the current documents were not as widely shared, allowing news organizations to be cautious in their publishing decisions. Some experts have said the decision to wait to publish this time was wise, given the uncertainty about the source of the leaked documents.
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a communications professor, expressed concern about possible manipulation by the Trump campaign and highlighted the challenges posed by the age of disinformation. Thomas Rid, who directs the Alperovitch Institute for Cybersecurity Studies at Johns Hopkins University, agrees that the threat of foreign interference is a more pressing issue than the leaked documents themselves.
Still, there are voices in the journalistic community who believe the media may have missed an opportunity to inform the public. Jesse Eisinger, a senior reporter at ProPublica, argues that while certain details about Vance are publicly available, the review report could have shed light on which statements were of particular interest to the campaign.
Eisinger concluded that once the accuracy of the material was verified, the relevance of the story should be more important than questions of source.
Overall, the different approaches taken by the media in this cycle compared to 2016 reveal an evolution in practice as they must navigate the complex dynamics of political campaigns, cybersecurity and the dissemination of sensitive information.
