While I think the Dems are making too much of it, because there hasn’t been much in the way of confirmation. Or even information on how much and which ones. There is actual indication that some of the documents/emails leaked may have been altered.
Disregarding that (because again, only vague indications, if that’s the case prove it please). The source of the hacks certainly does matter. Even ignoring the likely Russian source. Wikileaks and Assange have publicly stated their goal is to hurt Hillary Clinton. Not release valuable, newsworthy information that’s important to the American people and the world. To hurt a particular candidate in the US presidential election. The selective release of these emails and documents can itself be manipulative with or without alteration of the records themselves. Just to take a related example (from the Server investigation and not involving Wikileaks). The Trump campaigns “Hillary did it” on birtherism. They repeatedly point towards emails where Hillary’s campaign staff and personal associates emailed birther shit around. What they don’t point to are the responses to those actions. Both in the email records and otherwise. Shit they fired a campaign worker for furthering that shit. Because journalists, and the public, have access to that information they/we can point to those responses to counter the bonkers claims about Hillary starting birtherism.
In these hacks you, or the journalists, lack that kind of context. Have responses been held back? Other documents asserting the opposite of what was released removed? Basically a lie by omission if there was. Was some of what we’re reading (positive or negative) countermanded by actions outside of email. Conversations face to face, phone calls, actual actions by the people or groups involved. Were any of these faked or altered? In what way and by whom? The source very much matters as a point of journalism. Because lacking that sort of context. Its a journalists job to find that out. The coverage I’ve seen so far basically just transcribes the newsworthy bits and then goes to the campaigns for spin. That’s not journalism. That’s not informing the public. That’s collation.
Otherwise the repeated calls for the media to cover the leaks more heavily are a bit bonkers. Its getting covered, regularly. As it should be. Its not sticking or becoming the leading story because there’s really doesn’t seem to be a lot there. Its a lot of boring, inside baseball. The worst thing to come out of it was a bunch of DNC staffers bitching about Sanders and then deciding not to do the weak ass negative shit they came up with. After that its Hillary gave exactly the bland speeches you’d expect to Goldman. And John Podesta likes to talk about UFOs with that dude from Blink 182. There’s not a lot of there there. I’m willing to bet the next devastating revelation will be Hillary’s shopping list. AND GASP. She does not buy Budwieser!. Americas Beer! (Owned by Belgians and run by Brazilians).