Comment: I have no idea if Wolf's

(See in situ)

I have no idea if Wolf's

I have no idea if Wolf's concerns are valid and I have respect for much of her work, but I don't see much in the way of reasoned thinking here.

The reasons for her "creeping concerns" that Snowden is serving intelligence/police state objectives are:

1. He's organized and went about his whistleblowing with strategic thinking. She accuses him of having "great media training" but confuses that with PR 101, which means elementary PR thinking. He's spooky-suspicious because other whistleblowers she's aware of seem to put their lives in danger with bothering to be organized, research PR, and consult experts. Gong moment, Ms. Wolf, but "high-level political surrogates" don't manage super-organized, message discipline a good deal of the time.

This point seems to me to be saying, "The guy couldn't have calculated the risks, did what he could to research and understand his best attack, and did so. Therefore he must be being handled by high-up-ups, who never mess up. Um...except Patreaus, Bush, Biden, Obama, Rice, Hilary...."

Courageous people under stress sometimes go wonky; sometimes they go on guard and figure out what they're doing before they do it.

2. Really? A high school junior can memorize talking points. We're not talking rocket surgery. I can "transmit whole paragraphs smoothly." If a speaker knows his stuff and is confident, he's not going to struggle for words; his thinking was done long before. Stress, in an interview, is the product of a desire to, lie. Wolf's accusation that Snowden sounds like he's been trained by political campaign operatives, is a classic case of effect before cause. The political operatives are trying to get their subjects to mimic a genuine, honest subject's speech. You can't call the thing they try to mimic a product responsibly.