If this kind of reporting were done on a topic HN is generally critical of, you can bet there would be lots of disparaging comments as to the quality of the jou

If this kind of reporting were done on a topic HN is generally critical of, you can bet there would be lots of disparaging comments as to the quality of the journalism. The fact that the sentiment amongst those on HN is generally, to look at Snowden's disclosures as a positive thing ( I agree ) should not be used as an excuse to adopt a position that is impervious to criticism. While the culture for raising concerns in government organizations (especially ones dealing with security) may be bad, and the protections afforded to whistle-blowers lacking - to report on these without calling into doubt the claims that Snowden actually did make is dishonest. The litmus test for this is as with scientific publishing which has commercial/political purpose; what would they have published if evidence showed the opposite? Without a doubt it would be numerous media headlines with Snowden's formal complaints suppressed in government conspiracy or something along those lines. Even worse they wrote a title which actually suggests the later, even when the current evidence would point to Snowden's claims lacking foundation. > I understand your point, but I think you're misreading the situation a bit. I don't know if this argument is an example of planned deception or spontaneous, but I can give you the general logical form of the type of argument that is being made. 1) A is a True. Evidence will show that... 2) Evidence does not support A. 3) B is True. Why are we talking about A!? B is the crucial issue at hand!