Press Owes Public Explanation for Dramatic Shift in Leak Coverage Approach

Lack of transparency in leak coverage decisions undermines public trust in journalism during a crucial election period.

In politics, history has a way of repeating itself with a twist. Eight years ago, the media was drenched with leaked emails from Hillary Clinton's campaign, a flood that may have tipped the scales in Donald Trump's favor. Fast forward to 2024, and we find ourselves in a bizarro version of that same story. This time, it's the Trump campaign allegedly falling victim to a hack, with internal documents hitting journalists' inboxes. But unlike the frenzy of 2016, major news outlets have chosen to sit on this information, only revealing its existence weeks after the fact. Hmm.

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

This dramatic shift in approach raises a serious question: Has the media learned from its past mistakes, or is this an overcorrection in a way that, once again, just so happens to benefit Donald Trump? Meanwhile, the frustrating reality is that the public is largely in the dark about the decision-making processes behind these changes. While restraint in publishing potentially hacked materials can be commendable, the lack of transparency about this evolving practice is more than a little troubling.

---

---

I want to look at some of the similarities and differences between the 2016 and 2024 hack-and-leaks and try to understand why they’re being treated differently.