Many in the national media are certain that hacked emails hurt Hillary Clinton's chances in the election, but their reports and columns
rarely cite any of the emails' contents that would have presumably affected the outcome.
Members of the press have made a new push to assert that Russian hacking had an effect on the election, especially after last week's unclassified report that said Russia did try to help President-elect Trump, and hurt Hillary Clinton. That report made no finding of how effective Russia was, but many in the press are deciding nonetheless that the effort had a huge impact.
"While Russian hacks 'were not involved in vote tallying,' the publishing of pilfered emails ... altered the zeitgeist, poisoned the political environment and shifted public opinion, all of which redounded to Trump's benefit," liberal
New York Times columnist Charles Blow wrote on Monday, citing the intelligence report.
The night before, Blow's colleague Jim Rutenberg, who writes a column on media, said the "spilled secrets" in the emails were "damaging" to the Clinton campaign.
He noted that the email revelations saw the resignation of Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and led CNN to terminate its contract with Democratic strategist Donna Brazile.
But neither Blow nor Rutenberg explained why the emails were damaging nor did they cite examples as to what was in them.
Comment: See also: MSM: 'Hacked emails hurt Clinton's chances, we're just not sure how!'