Why Legacy Media Won’t Cover the CIA’s Election Meddling

Most progressive journalists now see themselves as 'soldiers'.

On Thursday, former CIA Director John Brennan sat with members of the House subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government, according to sources who spoke to The New York Post. 

The interview came days after the release of an email showing a correspondence between Brennan and former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell, in which Morrell asked the former CIA boss to sign a public letter alleging that Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop was likely a Russian plot to discredit the Biden family.

“Trying to give the campaign, particularly during the debate on Thursday, a talking point to push back on Trump on this issue,” the email reads.

The email between Brennan and Morell, which was first published by Just the News, comes two weeks after it was revealed that Morell admitted in sworn testimony that he orchestrated the ‘Russian disinformation” letter in an effort to help then-candidate Biden win the 2020 election.

Under questioning, Rep. Jim Jordan asked Morrell why he wanted to help Biden. “Because I wanted him to win the election,” Morrell bluntly responded.

It’s an astonishing admission. The testimony and documents make it clear that former CIA chiefs used the prestige of the intelligence agency and broader intelligence community to influence a presidential election. Yet this bombshell story has received almost zero mainstream news coverage. 

As liberal journalist Matt Taibbi wrote for Racket News, "An all-time media blackout is in effect." "Outside of conservative outlets, who naturally are eating it up," he says, "there were exactly two serious stories done about this on the national level in an appropriate response time." Centrist Isaac Saul, of Tangle, concurs. "This is a big story," Saul writes, "and it is very discouraging how little attention it's getting from certain corners of the media."

So why is the story mostly being ignored? 

First, it's worth noting that this isn't the first media blackout in the past few years. For several years, most news outlets refused to give the COVID-19 lab-leak theory any serious consideration. It was mocked as a "fringe conspiracy theory" and a "deliberate, even xenophobic attempt" by the Trump administration "to deflect blame" for Trump's handling of the pandemic. When Jon Stewart dared to suggest the idea might be plausible, he faced instant backlash. 

In the past few years, we've seen the media refuse to cover a number of stories with anything resembling journalistic skepticism. In "How the Media Fell for A Racism Sham", liberal reporter Jesse Singal recounts the story of how a Duke University volleyball player accused Brigham Young University students of shouting the n-word at her every time she served. The mainstream media, including the New York Times and NPR, ran with the story uncritically. The only problem was that the accusations weren't true. "There isn’t even evidence a single slur was hurled at her and her teammates," Signal says, "let alone a terrifying onslaught of them."

So why does so much of the media steadfastly refuse to cover certain stories? One big reason is that a new wave of young, progressive journalists increasingly see themselves as activists. In a widely-watched TED Talk, decision-making expert Julia Galef identifies two mindsets that people can adopt: “the soldier” and “the scout.” The scout is the epitome of the traditional reporter. She wants to understand. She wants an accurate picture of the situation, and she works hard to be unblinkered by ideological biases and motivated reasoning. By contrast, the soldier just wants to win. He doesn't want to understand the other side, and he's only interested in information that helps him defeat the enemy.