Corporate Media's Silence on Jack Smith's Surveillance of Journalists Reveals Hypocrisy on Press Freedom
Source: M.D. Kittle. "Corporate Media Silent On Jack Smith's Attack On Free Press." October 8, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that big news organizations are being hypocrites: they scream about threats to press freedom when it's politically convenient (like when Trump revoked certain press credentials), but they're staying quiet now that it's revealed a Democratic-appointed prosecutor spied on journalists' private communications, including their own. Instead of investigating this, outlets mocked a Republican senator's minor mistake during the hearing where this was revealed.
Conclusion
Mainstream/corporate media outlets are hypocritical for ignoring and downplaying revelations that former Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation seized communications from nearly 50 journalists and major news outlets, because these same outlets loudly champion press freedom and condemn perceived threats to it only when convenient to their political narrative.
Premises
- Whistleblower disclosures to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley show Smith's 'Arctic Frost' investigation swept up communications from over a dozen major news outlets (including CNN, NBC, Fox News, Washington Post, AP, Reuters, and others) and nearly 50 journalists.
- Despite being directly affected (their own communications were seized), outlets like CNN and NBC News devoted coverage instead to a minor factual error by Sen. Eric Schmitt during the hearing, using mocking headlines rather than investigating the surveillance revelations.
- The same media outlets that protested loudly when the Trump administration revoked White House press credentials for perceived threats to press freedom have been silent about a government prosecutor literally seizing journalists' private communications.
- Media watchdog David Bozell states that if a Republican-appointed special counsel had done the same thing to Democrats, it would dominate news coverage for weeks, implying a partisan double standard.
- Additional damning evidence—such as Smith's team urgently acquiring surveillance/evidence-processing software (Axon Investigate) and issuing nearly 200 subpoenas targeting hundreds of Republican individuals and organizations—has also gone largely unreported by corporate media.
- Politico, when it did report on the revelations, framed them as a partisan GOP attack on Smith rather than as a legitimate press freedom concern, further suggesting bias rather than neutral journalism.
Assumptions
- Corporate/mainstream media outlets are expected to apply consistent standards when their own press freedom is implicated, regardless of the political party responsible for the threat.
- The volume and tone of media coverage reliably indicates editorial priorities and potential bias.
- Silence or deflection by media on a story equates to complicity or ideological alignment with the subject (Smith) rather than other explanations (e.g., ongoing legal sensitivities, story prioritization, lack of newsworthiness).
- Jack Smith's investigation was predominantly politically motivated ('witch hunt') rather than a legitimate law enforcement action, which colors the interpretation of the subpoenas and surveillance as abusive rather than standard investigative practice.
- The comparison to a hypothetical reversed scenario (Republican prosecutor targeting Democrats) is a valid predictor of how media would behave, assuming symmetrical treatment is the normal baseline for journalistic standards.