John Harwood writes for the New York Times, and appears on CNBC. He was a debate moderator. He reported back to Hillary's campaign on how nasty he had been to trump. They love him!
I don't see your accusation about that post-debate email in a Breitbart piece slamming Harwood.
If you hacked the email of any big-name political reporter on TV, you'd find them buttering up top sources in every campaign. That's common in journalism. Harwood may have crossed a line, but it's not as obvious as you think it is. Many reporters working a big source try to sound like your best buddy. His boss could order him never to send emails like that again and he'd be doing it in six months. To do otherwise is to get beat by your competition.
The New York Times itself allowed Hillary to veto certain quotes: if she didn't like 'em, they were out. This is the New York Times giving its coverage to a candidate, handing over the writing, while claiming fairness.
I don't know this charge. In general, newspapers forbid giving anyone quote approval. The New York Times has a policy against it. But sometimes a reporter will double-check some quotes with a source to make sure it was accurate. My guess is that it happens sometimes with big-name sources, but it shouldn't.
I wrote for Wizard comics magazine once and sent the whole thing to the interview subject in advance. I figured it was just a comic book magazine so why not? The guy called my editor right before the issue went to press to change quotes. I caught hell from the editor and never did that again.
Donna Brazille told Hillary, in advance, about a question that would be asked by CNN at a town hall debate. Can you say collusion?
If this is true, there's nothing wrong or unethical with what she did. Brazile's a political operative. If she finds information she's going to use it to help her side.
The problem is with the journalist at CNN or TV One who gave an outside party a debate question in advance. That should be a firing offense.
The Boston Globe got together with Hillary's campaign to "maximize her presence" in the paper. Where would you like to be? How can we make you more prominent?
This offer was made by the Globe's opinion page editor and was entirely about when an op-ed from Hillary's campaign would run in the paper.
For this reason, I don't have a problem with it. The same thing happens all the time with prominent people who write commentaries. The timing of the piece is negotiated.
Speaking as a former newspaper reporter for 10 years, the news is like sausage. The public wouldn't like seeing what we do to make it.
The more famous or important the reporter, the more likely that person has crossed some lines to get the best sources and information. But even some no-name reporters for local papers like I was sometimes have to test the ethical boundaries.
These days, I assume the big names I see on MSNBC, CNN and Fox News are excessively buddy-buddy with sources on one side or even both sides. Today Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski were throwing such a big pity party for Trump voters I told my wife "they must have landed a Trump interview that's happening soon." I'm cynical about the big names in political media.