Writer for outlet that got Trump leaks rips 'baffling' decision to not publish them

Earlier this week, at least three news outlets — the New York Times, the Washington Post and Politico — all received leaked internal documents from former President Donald Trump's campaign. But so far, no outlet has published anything from those leaks, and one Politico journalist is calling out his employer for its decision.

In a recent essay for anti-Trump conservative news site the Bulwark, Politico senior writer Marc A. Caputo laid out his case for why the documents are newsworthy and deserving of coverage. He acknowledged that while he isn't privy to conversations among his editors about whether his outlet will eventually publish some of that leaked information, and that while he hasn't personally seen the leaks, there is still tremendous news value in the documents themselves.

Caputo noted that the leaked information appears to involve vetting documents for Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) the Trump campaign assembled when considering whether to make the Hillbilly Elegy author the GOP's 2024 vice presidential nominee. He suggested that there is inherent news value in exploring whether Vance's controversial "childless cat ladies" comment was regarded as potentially damaging to Trump's chances of winning back the White House. He added that it was "baffling" to not report on the leaks, arguing that "what a campaign thought about its own vice presidential candidate is inherently newsworthy."

READ MORE: 3 major publications refuse to reveal details about Trump campaign breach — unlike 2016 Clinton hack

"[T]he file would give us clear insights into what the Trump campaign believes are political liabilities and ideological third rails in this modern campaign climate," he wrote. "With the benefit of recent reporting on old Vance positions and statements, we could also see the stuff that Trump’s vetting team may have missed—itself an illustration of the operation’s mindset."

Caputo offered the benefit of the doubt to the three outlets in question, saying they may be currently "working to ensure that no erroneous material was deliberately inserted."

"But that is not the explanation they have offered so far for why they are holding off," he wrote. "And if they ultimately decide not to publish the material, it would be a mistake on its face. It would defy longstanding journalist principles and feed conspiracy theories about pro-Trump media bias. And it glaringly conflicts with past practice."

As Caputo documented, a Russian hacker known as "Guccifer" obtained internal emails from Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta in 2016, and leaked them to Wikileaks. And the Politico journalist reminded Bulwark readers that all three outlets that received the leaked Trump documents this week all participated in the frenzy of media coverage surrounding the 2016 hack.

READ MORE: Vance effort to retract 'sexist' remark ripped: 'No problem with the cats, just the women'

"This time, Trump’s campaign says it was the one hacked by a foreign entity — Iran is the alleged culprit — and that those who release the information are 'doing the bidding of America’s enemies and doing exactly what they want.' But that isn’t the primary consideration that the outlets should weigh when it comes to deciding whether to publish the materials," Caputo wrote. "Their considerations should be much more narrow: Can the information be verified and is it news?"

Additionally, the Politico senior writer recalled a moment from the 2016 campaign cycle when he reported on hacked internal opposition research materials (also known as "oppo") from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) about U.S. House of Representatives candidates in Florida. He said his employer's decision to publish the oppo was not an easy call, but nonetheless the right one, as it was newsworthy.

"60 Minutes correspondent Bill Whitaker asked if it was fair to use the DCCC hacked documents. 'Life is unfair,' I replied. 'And politics is unfair. My job is not to sit there and decide, "this is fair, and this is not." My job is to cover the news. And wherever the news leads, we follow.' I would say the same thing today," Caputo wrote. "The job is to cover the news. And the Vance dossier sure as hell sounds like news."

Click here to read Caputo's full essay in the Bulwark.

READ MORE: 'Last straw': JD Vance's best friend reveals moment he switched from Never Trump to MAGA