“There is perhaps no phenomenon which contains so much destructive feeling as ‘moral indignation,’ which permits envy or hate to be acted out under the guise of virtue.” — Erich Fromm, “Man for Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics”

The press just can’t make anyone happy, anymore.

Donald Trump and his people routinely say the press is out to get him and only him. Yet progressives now accuse the media of doing Trump a favor because outlets have so far refused to publish Trump campaign documents provided by a suspected Iranian hacker.

The left accuses the press of using a double standard because journalists in 2016 eagerly published Democratic emails provided by a Russian hacker.

Yet, as with most things, the situation’s more nuanced.

And no two stories are the same.

First, let’s go back to 2016.

Well, really, we must first travel back to spring 2015, when the New York Times first reported that Hillary Clinton, then-President Barack Obama’s secretary of state, had used a private email server for official business. The scoop prompted investigations by inspectors general and then the FBI, the latter of which revealed classified material had been sent over that less-secure private server.

That was the political backdrop in summer 2016, when a website called DCLeaks and then WikiLeaks began publishing emails from the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee that were apparently pilfered by a Russian hacker.

Clinton’s past email troubles, raising questions about how seriously the secretary of state took the security of state secrets, made the hack itself newsworthy. But the information contained in the hacked emails was newsworthy itself, showing some people at the DNC, which is supposed to remain neutral during the Democratic primaries, had instead conspired against Bernie Sanders, who was giving Clinton serious trouble on her left flank.

Fast-forward eight long years to 2024.

Reporters at Politico, the New York Times, and the Washington Post each separately received emails from a person identifying himself or herself as “Robert” and providing documents thieved from the Trump campaign. The campaign claimed it had been hacked by Iranian actors, as Microsoft had publicly warned about just days before.

Yet, this time, while the media reported broadly on the hack and said they’d independently authenticated the documents “Robert” sent them, the media hasn’t yet published the stolen documents.

Why not?

For a few reasons, according to a story in the Washington Post.

Some editors and media-watchers told the Post that reporters and editors had learned some lessons in 2016. Back then, intelligence analysts concluded Russia hacked the Democrats simply to sow discord in the electoral process, and the media concluded that they’d played right into the Russians’ hands by making such hay of the revelations in the stolen emails. Editors wanted to practice more restraint this time around, some told the Post.

But perhaps the biggest reason — or at least the reason making it easier to practice restraint — is that the documents “Robert” provided are a bit of a yawn.

The Iranians — if, indeed, it was Iran — got their hands on at least some of the documents the campaign produced as they vetted Trump’s potential vice presidential picks. But the documents apparently came from early in the vetting process and mainly consist of publicly available and already-reported-on quotes and writings, such as past anti-Trump statements made by J.D. Vance, whom Trump ultimately selected as his running mate.

The public already knew most of what “Robert” had to offer, so journalists saw little public interest in publishing them, and certainly not enough public interest to outweigh the distaste of doing the bidding of a foreign interferer.

The documents will become public, anyway, because “Robert” will eventually find a friendly audience or will just decide to publish the documents himself or herself.

So, the press figures, why should it be the one to act on Iran’s behalf?

I think the Times, Post, and Politico made the right call, in this case.

Had “Robert” provided anything of any real value, I think the press would’ve — should’ve — gone with it.

There’s real public interest in knowing the inner workings of a presidential campaign, because how a candidate runs his or her campaign can provide an idea of how he or she might run an administration. Many of the people who help candidates on their campaigns end up working in the administration, so knowing how such people operate while trying to get their chief elected can reveal a lot about how they might operate in the West Wing. Gaining that insight, even if it comes from nefarious sources, could be worth the collateral damage, because it makes for more informed voters.

But when the information provided fails to offer such insight, reporters ought to leave well enough alone and let the foreign actor find his or her own publication channels.

Justin A. Hinkley can be reached at 989-354-3112 or jhinkley@thealpenanews.com. Follow him on Twitter @JustinHinkley.