I think it's pretty clear wikileaks has been used in a partisan manner in the 2016 presidential elections. I don't believe most serious journalists would have published most of Podesta's emails, if any. Especially considering the probable sources.

Why would they not publish these emails?

Because most of them are completely irrelevant and there is very little informational benefit to warrant this privacy violation. I mean... risotto recipes?

After wikileaks published the material journalists did cover some of it. And even so, they partly regret that, in light of what we know now.

"serious journalists" Approved by the state, perhaps?

Those with a particular "traditional" ethics standard. Which is getting muddier by the day.

It really isn't. You're just becoming more aware of it. There are good journalists, dishonest journalists and everything in between at the Times, which for all its issues is still probably the best newspaper in the world. I'd be a fool to take what they say as fact because they say it as much as they pretend it's so.

First of all Wikileaks is not a media outlet. But that's not even the point and that's another story.

The point is the "timed" the action to purposefully benefit one side and in effect benefit itself, while purporting all the time that it is a paragon of openness.

Whole problem with WikiLeaks has been it is telling the truths, half-truths or not even telling anything in some cases.

At the end of the day WikiLeaks has a agenda and it become a tool, albeit a political one.