The Trump campaign says that it was hacked by what they suspect were foreign agents agents. The hacked emails were sent to Politico and The Washington Post which decided not to publish them. You read that right. They received hacked documents from suspect origins which have been authenticated by the campaign itself and they are choosing not to publish. Can you see the problem here? Will Bunch said it so succinctly I have no need to go further: The hot mess that was the political media in 2016 continues to slime America 8 years later In 2016, there was no reasoned debate about the ethics of publishing Russian-hacked documents. Not that it’s not a tough call, morally — but the debate wasn’t even held. The documents were just published without any thought. Only after the election did anyone wonder so much regard was given to the (mostly inconsequential) leaks and so little to shockingly illegal methods to obtain them. So now.. I’d agree Politico and other news media are technically correct to consider the source and the motive before deciding whether or what to publish. The problem is this: The lack of any ethical debate in publishing the Russian hacks greatly benefited one candidate: Donald Trump Eight years later, the media restraint in not publishing this alleged Iranian hack benefits one candidate: Donald Trump Public distrust of the media is off the charts in part because many voters suspect, with some good reasons, that the media is in the tank for…