If Watergate happened today, US media wouldn't care about the break in

[Democat]

The scandal of Watergate was the break in, not whatever was on the papers that were stolen. Does anyone even know what was on the stolen Watergate papers?

Today's media is more interested in the contents of emails hacked for the Republican presidential candidate than the fact that the Republican presidential candidate is supporting the hacking of US government.

Imagine how different the Watergate Scandal would be covered today. The only news would be about the stolen papers themselves and how they show that Democrats are evil. Nixon would be laughing about it and planning the next break in.

[TexasProgresive]

1. They didn't care then. It was 2 tenacious reporters who keep on it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal
[Washington] Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncovered information suggesting that knowledge of the break-in, and attempts to cover it up, led deeply into the upper reaches of the Justice Department, FBI, CIA, and the White House. Woodward and Bernstein interviewed Judy Hoback Miller, the bookkeeper for Nixon, who revealed to them information about the mishandling of funds and records being destroyed.

Woodward and Bernstein did what journalists are supposed to do, they keep at it doing the Who, what, when, where, why, and how that marks good journalism. The advantage to print medium is no one is concerned as to a reporters appearance.

[FreakinDJ]

2. it was the cover up not the break in

[wishstar]

3. Instead they keep saying the hacked emails are "problematic" for Hillary

Even though Trump has been lying about Russian involvement and made remarks encouraging the hacks which were obviously being done to help him. Plus several recently released emails have been exposed as altered.

And it has been revealed this week that his campaign (Roger Stone) must have had advance notice that Podesta's were hacked and Trump knew about the email (altered ) from Sidney Blumenthal before the emails were publicly released.

[Wilms]

4. I wasn't aware that any papers were stolen.

They attempted that, reportedly. And tapped phones. But what papers did they steal??

And you're forgetting the Pentagon Papers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

[Democat]

6. Wikepedia says part of the plan was to photograph campaign documents

If they did that, no one knows what was on the documents because the story back then was about the crime and cover up, not the contents of the stolen docs.

The story today is about the docs, and most media doesn't care that Trump is encouraging Russia to hack the US government and private citizens.

[Wilms]

7. And, like I said, there is no mention of them having succeeded.

So your whole "If they did that..." amounts to nothing.

[RobinA]

5. I Was Just Thinking

this morning that one of the most disturbing things about this very disturbing election is these hacked e-mails and 1) how they are falling under the category of "e-mail" and are blending with the whole personal server e-mail thing into one big "e-mail" morass, and 2) how they are being used to influence an American election from outside, and 3) how the issue of their use itself really getting reported.

I realize the media has its hands full with daily Donald eruptions, and it's easier to talk about what the e-mails say than to parse the hacking's effect on the process, but I hope this is addressed post election.