At least three major news outlets have been recipients of confidential material from within the Donald Trump campaign, including a report on the vetting of potential Vice Presidential candidate JD Vance. However, these media outlets have chosen not to disclose specific details about the information they have received.

Politico, The New York Times, and The Washington Post have instead written articles describing a potential hack of the Trump campaign and providing broad descriptions of the leaked documents.

The situation starkly contrasts with the 2016 presidential campaign when Russian hackers exposed emails from Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta, which were then published by Wikileaks. These revelations led to widespread coverage by mainstream news organizations.

Politico reported receiving emails starting on July 22 from an individual identified as "Robert." These emails contained a 271-page campaign document on Vance and a partial vetting report on Senator Marco Rubio, who was also considered for the Vice Presidential position. Both Politico and The Post confirmed the authenticity of these documents through independent sources.

The Times described the Vance report as containing past statements that could potentially be embarrassing or damaging, including remarks critical of Donald Trump. However, the identity of the individual who provided this information remains unknown.

The Trump campaign has claimed that it was hacked and that Iranians are responsible for the breach, although no evidence has been presented to support this claim. This assertion came after Microsoft reported an attempt by an Iranian military intelligence unit to compromise the email account of a former senior advisor to a presidential campaign.

Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, criticized media outlets for publishing documents or internal communications, stating that they are aiding America's enemies. The FBI released a brief statement confirming an ongoing investigation into this matter.

The Times declined to discuss their rationale for not publishing specific details of the internal communications. A spokesperson for The Post stated that their decisions are based on assessing the authenticity of materials, considering the motives of sources, and evaluating the public interest in determining what to publish.

Brad Dayspring, a spokesperson for Politico, explained that editors deemed the questions surrounding the origins of the documents and their acquisition more newsworthy than the content of the documents themselves.

As soon as Vance was announced as Trump's running mate, various news organizations began uncovering unflattering statements made by the Ohio senator about him in the past.

The 2016 election provides a lesson in handling hacked materials. During that campaign, candidate Trump and his team actively encouraged coverage of documents obtained by Wikileaks that exposed the Clinton campaign's internal communications. However, concerns about Russian hacking quickly gave way to fascination over the revelations, leading some media outlets to misrepresent certain information for sensationalism.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania who wrote "Cyberwar," believes that news organizations made the right decision not to publish specific details of the Trump campaign material due to uncertainty surrounding the source. She emphasizes caution in publishing decisions in this era of misinformation.

Thomas Rid, director of the Alperovitch Institute for Cybersecurity Studies at Johns Hopkins, also supports the media's decision not to publish the leaked documents. He argues that the potential influence of foreign agents on the 2024 presidential campaign is more newsworthy than the content of the leaked materials.

However, journalist Jesse Eisinger of ProPublica suggests that the media could have provided more context and information about the documents instead of focusing solely on their origins. He argues that once the accuracy of the information is established, newsworthiness becomes a more significant factor than the source.

Eisinger criticizes the media's handling of the situation, stating that they may have overlearned the lessons of 2016 and should have provided more comprehensive coverage of the leaked documents.