Yes, that is journalism.

If the CIA managed to stop that hacking before it happened no journalist would have cried.

If the journalist had participated in the hacking they would be criminally responsible.

And if the journalist obtain proof of relevant stories (especially related to corruption in politics) they will publish them.

There has never been a poisonous tree standard in journalism.

> Yes, that is journalism.

No that's the active measures of a spy agency.

Just to agree on our respective positions, my understanding is that you are claiming that the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine should apply to journalism and news.

I would argue that this has very easily exploited consequences: if you want something to be ignore just hire some hacker to surgically hack parts of that information. Not enough to be criminal, and you are safe from the court of public opinion.

Wikileaks actively agreed to launder and selectively release Russian military hacked materials for specific political purposes.

Referring to that as journalism is an insult to actual journalists.