More on WikiLeaks from Ken Auletta and Hooman Majd

More from Ken Auletta: 

  • One could argue that the emails between Mr. kennedy at State and the FBI was a possible smoking gun or worthy of big news attention. But the Podesta emails are, as David Brooks observed, “boring.” And they are certainly not equal in news value to a recording of Trump boasting of how he gets away with grabbing the private parts of attractive women because he’s a celebrity.
  • There is another question worth pondering: what are the ethics of rifling through stolen goods? Most journalists are aghast when we learn a sensationalist tabloid had gone through a politician or a celebrity’s garbage. We would not steal documents from the desk of someone we are interviewing. Yet with little second thought we gleefully rifle through personal emails. This question is worthy of discussion, yet it receives none.


More from Hooman Majd:

  • “I think there are two issues with the so-called “email scandal”. One is the fact that Clinton kept a server at her home (which was brought up during the primaries, and which her main rival Bernie Sanders dismissed as not relevant), and more recently the Wikileaks hacked emails which purport to reveal what Hillary Clinton and her team really think. I do believe there is substance to both issues—any time a candidate for president is investigated by the FBI it is certainly the media’s responsibility to cover the issue—and what some of the leaked emails show today is what a Clinton presidency policies could potentially be. And those policies (and this should come as no surprise to anyone) may be different from what the campaign is saying now.”
  • “If Trump wasn’t such a divisive figure, and if his own faults weren’t too obvious, I think the media may have covered the email hacks (and the server issue) more aggressively. If the GOP candidate was someone more like Kasich or Bush (more vanilla, in other words), then I think the Clinton emails would be viewed as more scandalous, and worth devoting more time to. In terms of devoting equal time to Trump scandals and Clinton scandals, I’m not sure the media thinks in terms of a clock. Clearly, the mainstream media attempts to be neutral and cover issues that affect the campaigns, and scandals are probably covered to the extent that they elicit outrage and in terms of importance to the office of the presidency.”
  • “I don’t think the networks are motivated to cover the emails any more or less than they would otherwise because of what Trump (or Clinton) might accuse them of at any given time.”