Comment: What has me somewhat baffled

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Great Observation (see in situ)

What has me somewhat baffled

What has me somewhat baffled is Glenn Greenwald's involvement in this matter. I know he's no different from any of us, insofar as we are all self-interested individuals, however he seems to have crossed that invisible line that separates a journalist from an active participant. Yes, it's expected that a journalist protect their source, however a journalist should never be a blatant advocate in the way Greenwald has chosen to milk this story. He should present the facts as he knows them and explain what is unclear.

His advocacy on Twitter makes me question his ethical boundaries quite frankly, which is a shame and a poor reflection on the wider importance of this story. The story is more important than him and Snowden combined. It's a story of government run amok in the zeal to carry out a duty, destroying the freedoms it was meant to protect.

I get the impression Greenwald has forgotten that he needs to lay out all of the facts as be knows them and not retain information to threaten others. It becomes more like blackmail than exposing corruption.

When he said this, my "caution" signal went off: “We’re going to have a lot more significant revelations that have not yet been heard over the next several weeks and months. How fast we get the next one out is something we’re deciding now. But there are dozens of more stories generated by the documents he provided.”

That's not something a person concerned about the story says.

Mind you, I think there is a place for advocacy and for advocacy journalism, but one must be careful to not confuse advocacy with becoming an accomplice, regardless of one's position on a story.