As Twitchy reported Friday, 2020 candidate had some explaining to do concerning his relationship with the Cult of the Dead Cow, a collective of hackers from the ’90s.

As it turns out, a reporter for Reuters knew all about this part of O’Rourke’s past but chose to bury it until after his 2018 bid to unseat Sen. Ted Cruz in Texas.

Reuters knew O’Rourke was a member of secret hacking group but agreed not to publish until after Senate race was over https://t.co/Bym6uLc2qT — Matt Mackowiak (@MattMackowiak) March 16, 2019

Reuters admits they had the story on all of Beto O'Rourke's old writings and interviewed him about it in 2017 and agreed to sit on the story until after O'Rourke's Senate run against Ted Cruz. This is why people do not trust the media.https://t.co/gZXgZmI5Bt — Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) March 17, 2019

The last thing the press is supposed to do is to hold back on a story to help a politician. This is a pretty reprehensible thing to have done. https://t.co/udO75l7eYh pic.twitter.com/Vjo9k0bHNn — Heather Champion (@winningatmylife) March 17, 2019

Wow. Reuters admits one of their journalists discovered Beto had been part of a well-known hacker group and they interviewed him about it in 2017, but agreed to withhold the information until after his Senate race in 2018: https://t.co/a7i5vCBnJz (ht @MattMackowiak) — (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) March 16, 2019

I can understand wanting to get confirmation, but they essentially admit they intentionally withheld the information from the public for more than a year specifically due to the Senate election. Telling that they admitted this without recognizing the huge ethical issue. — (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) March 16, 2019

Hang on, guys. Media hall monitor Brian Stelter of CNN is here to explain why Reuters would agree to withhold potentially damning information until after an important election:

Reporters who are writing books sometimes hold back certain info til their book comes out. That's what the reporter says happened in this case. Book deal situations are definitely complicated. The Fox/Stormy situation didn't involve a book. What's your proposal — no books? — Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) March 17, 2019

Beyond parody. At least he is consistent. pic.twitter.com/AxzzFX3dsu — (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) March 17, 2019

Seriously, how do you spend 2 weeks flipping out (based on questionable reporting) about FNC allegedly killing a story for a pol during an election, but then just excuse a Reuters reporting doing the same thing because he happened to be working on a book? Amazing pretzel. — (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) March 17, 2019

To be clear, I offered @BetoORourke an embargo because it was for a book I was on leave to write, not for my day job, and because no one else who knew would confirm the facts before the election. — Joseph Menn (@josephmenn) March 16, 2019

I think you're framing it the wrong way. "Reuters reporter who was working on a book learned something while doing a book and agreed not to publish it til the book came out." These book deal situations are controversial… but complicated. https://t.co/PVPoIxA4eD — Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) March 17, 2019

Funny how it’s suddenly become “complicated.”

Same journos that hold a damaging Beto story until after an election would release a story damaging to a Republican at the time it would do the most damage. — Carl Gustav (@CaptYonah) March 17, 2019

I mean…I don't even know what to say. I really don't. I am not even mad. Just disgusted that this is what journalism has come to. It is damaging to the country. https://t.co/3hcxox40P4 — Pradheep J. Shanker, M.D., M.S. (@Neoavatara) March 17, 2019

Media is burying stories for Beto. He really is Obama 2.0. https://t.co/5HEhsPaiwX — BT (@back_ttys) March 17, 2019

Let’s look forward to some less-than-forthcoming but “complicated” coverage of Beto O’Rourke’s campaign from here on.

Related: