If John Podesta had called two highly accomplished men of Latin descent "needy Latinos" in those hacked emails, perhaps the news media would have showed some interest in them.

Wait, no, he did say that. The Democratic presidential nominee's campaign chairman referred to former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and former Transportation and Energy Secretary Federico Pena as "needy Latinos"!

Confronted with Podesta's email, most mainstream reporters and news anchors said, "So what?"

Nearly nothing in the recent WikiLeaks email dumps has succeeded in scandalizing the news media.

Even when the national press' favorite subject, a powerful white man dismissing minorities, came up, the New York Times and Washington Post gave a yawn.

The August 2015 email, in which Podesta advises Clinton to give a courtesy call to "needy Latinos" Richardson and Pena, came out last week and neither the Times nor the Post have mentioned it in their disinterested coverage of the WikiLeaks revelations.

The "needy Latinos" email was also almost entirely absent from TV news.

When CNN covered it on Saturday, the anchor said the email contained "a couple unflattering terms" but was sure to note that Podesta at least "complimented" Richardson as a "valuable surrogate."

Admittedly, that's a step above "useful minority."

When the emails are covered at all — there were other apparent non-stories in them, such as major Clinton backer John Halpin referring to the "severely backwards gender relations" of Catholics, earning a response from Clinton's communications director Jennifer Palmieri about how weird evangelicals are — the coverage always comes with a bizarre disclaimer that they haven't been "authenticated."

The WikiLeaks dumps have included transcripts from a speech Clinton gave to big Wall Street bankers, revealing her "dream" of "open borders," but those are also treated by the press with the type of brooding skepticism typically found in moon landing conspiracy theorists.

An MSNBC graphic on Monday said the transcripts were of Clinton's "purported speech."

The anchor of the segment, Stephanie Ruhle, dutifully informed viewers that the transcripts "haven't been authenticated."

A CNN segment last weekend on the Podesta emails gave a friendly reminder that the network "cannot independently verify" whether the emails were legitimate.

Clinton's campaign surrogates have refused, when directly asked, to confirm or deny the veracity of the emails, instead changing the subject to how the emails were illegally hacked, and blaming Russia.

But as chance would have it, the Democratic nominee herself has already confirmed that the WikiLeaks hacks are part of Russia's intent to influence the election.

Lest there be any confusion, Clinton said in front of the 66 million TV viewers of the second presidential debate last Sunday: "The Russian government [is] directing the attacks, the hacking on American accounts to influence our election and WikiLeaks is part of that ..."

The emails were either hacked or they're not real. Nobody has ever complained about their fake emails being hacked.

Perhaps at the third and final debate Wednesday night, moderator Chris Wallace can clear this up and ask Clinton why her campaign aides talk this way in real or not real emails. Maybe he'll also drop a line about the "needy Latinos" and those "severely backwards" Catholics, just to be sure.

So far as the national media are concerned, though, it's a moot point. There are no stories of consequence in the emails.

Making no mention of the "needy Latinos" email or the condescending chat about the religious, James Poniewozik, a TV critic who dabbles in political commentary, wrote Tuesday at the New York Times, "Where there's a smoking gun, there isn't always fire."

The one bit of information to come out of the emails and gain some traction among the national media was an apparent transactional conversation between the FBI and the State Department. It appeared to show a State official asking that an old email's classification level be retroactively adjusted to be in line with Clinton's defense of how she handled sensitive government communications during her tenure as secretary of state.

Meanwhile, voters were treated over the last two weeks to round-the-clock coverage of a video from 2005 wherein Republican Donald Trump joked about women letting him come on to them because he's "a star." If only the video had shown him plotting how to campaign for the "needy Latino" vote, we might not have heard a word about it.

Eddie Scarry is a media reporter for the Washington Examiner. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.