Oh, professional courtesy, that's what we call it now. A heads up is one thing, running the details of the narrative and making sure the two line up is another. It's the journalists job to determine what stories need to be told, not the campaign directors.
What - exactly - did the DNC leaks show in this regard? All I ever found anyone say is "oh they're in cahoots" without ever being able to point me to something specific.
'Bias' even 'gross editorial bias' is a different thing that point-blank fraud.
I mean - we've come to expect media outlets to 'take sides'.
But non payment for services rendered is definitely criminal, and even though I don't like a lot of what the NYT does ... I would still assume they'd be the kind of org to actually pay people for their work. That's not a kind of ethical line we'd expect them to cross.
Undisclosed collaboration and planning with primary subjects of your journalism is point-blank fraud. It might not be criminal, but it's beyond dishonest and therefore very unethical.
It was something of a pain to get the URL with googles AMP, but I found this, which showed journalists crossing boundaries and getting too friendly with DNC insiders:
That seems to describe an NYT journalist emailing members of the Hillary team and talking about their candidate in positive terms.
Maybe I don't expect enough of journalists, but I'm not really seeing the scandal there. Buttering up a source by talking positively about their candidate seems... sensible?
Fair enough. If this is limited to that kind of flattery (and I haven't read enough to verify either way) then we can write that off as good ol-fashioned "working a source" and not particularly worrisome.
(I can't reply to untog since it is too deep in the thread but this in reply to their comment)
When you are professedly a journalist, you are to report the facts unbiased, not get friendly and in bed with campaign insiders, running your pieces by them to get their opinion. There are many more heinous emails than the ones linked by parent, specifically some that are exchanges making sure the narrative that was going to be published "sounded good" to the Hillary camp.
That's not journalism. It's propaganda.
My own observation: the fact that we have to get apologetic about this behavior further proves the point.
I find it interesting that none of the responses to your question link to direct primary sources. They're all third-hand accounts of how "they're in cahoots."
What is interesting is that you chose to make a false criticism of the post, and not investigate the myriad links supporting his assertion.
Whether it's pedantically true is open for discussion, but it's certainly supported with more than hearsay as you suggest.
In the first [1] link, the article calls out a fact based comparison of a title change with links to the source:
First, The New York Times changed the article’s headline, from: “Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors,” to: Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories.” The article also added two paragraphs criticizing Sanders, portraying him as unrealistic, a commonly-used Clinton campaign argument—especially as Sanders continues to be much more progressive than Clinton on a number of important issues.
Also in [1]:
In the latest WikiLeaks release of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s emails, several Times journalists are implicated in abandoning any semblance of objectivity to fulfill the agenda of the Clinton campaign. In July 2015, correspondent Mark Leibovich emailed the Clinton campaign a transcript of an interview he conducted with Clinton for them to proofread and edit as they saw fit.
Which includes links to the actual emails, as well as a discussion of how the NYT is owned by Slim who donates a lot to the Clinton Foundation:
The New York Times’ majority shareholder, billionaire Carlos Slim, has donated between one and five million dollars to the Clinton Foundation. The Times’ staff, especially on politics, may not be directly influenced by their wealthy owners, but the hiring practices and editorial board’s decisions reflect the desire to maintain, preserve, and perpetuate the status quo—not issue challenges to this establishment.
In the next article [2] Mr. Starkweather provides sources showing that the NYT modified their coverage of HRC based on the request of the campaign:
The New York Times political correspondent made the omissions at the request of Hillary Clinton’s campaign lawyer, Marc E. Elias, and DNC officials. The emails, published by Wikileaks, also appear to show that Confessore made other edits to the article at the request of former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Shultz.
The provided information directly links to source material, esp. wrt Wikileaks, and your accusation is baseless.
Since Wikileaks is publishing other people's private information—as opposed to "news" or "journalism"—the only thing to "watch" is if what they are publishing has been altered or not (or was made up out of whole cloth).
To the best of my knowledge, there are no known instance of Wikileaks publishing fraudulent or altered information.
What they hold back, what they publish and when they publish it can potentially be abused - for instance to present or enhance one narrative, and obscure another.
And Wikileaks itself could be used as a tool by other actors ( e.g. for political gain) via strategic leaks or somesuch…
While Wikileaks may not alter any of the information they are given, it is plausible that their sources have the ability to alter documents before sending to Wikileaks.
Of course nothing has come of this speculation, so it may end up being nothing.
My last $.02, given the sensitive nature of some of the information that Wikileaks releases, there is probably no avenue for corroborating the materials other than, maybe, how the source received said materials.
Wikileaks tells us otherwise.