Does wading through Hillary’s emails pass the “is it in the public interest?” question that is perennially posed by the journalism gods? The answer is obviously yes, certainly more so than the Sony hack. But what gets me is the entity who opened the floodgates on this hack — Wikileaks — seem to think they can exempt themselves from those thorny issues of ethics and objectivity by their self-described ethos of “radical transparency.” Even though releasing one candidate’s emails and not the other’s seems to actually be the exact opposite of perfect transparency (also, just for a moment, imagine the contents of Trump’s emails). Wikileaks, by their decision to leak these emails obtained by Russian hackers, is taking a hugely significant stance in this election, all under the grand delusion that they are simply being a neutral conduit for information. Journalists are no doubt doing their job by using this information—and hopefully contextualizing it more ably than the greasy and megalomaniacal Julian Assange ever could—in their reports, but it’s a grand delusion to think this information is coming from a source without a serious agenda. That fact, I believe, should be noted in every single story that is being published using this information.