> Now, you introduced biases from the journalists, which is arguably not better. Journalists could be influenced or controled by states or other parties, and th

> Now, you introduced biases from the journalists, which is arguably not better. Journalists could be influenced or controled by states or other parties, and then surely control a part of public opinion. sure, but he significantly reduced that risk by going to a number of journalists working for different organizations in different countries, creating a disincentive for any single publisher to become known as the one that publishes misinformation. I agree there's a stronger argument against radical transparency than there is in favor of intermediaries, but whistleblowing is realistically never going to be a scenario in which the circumstance or timing is perfect... going to journalists is a good solution, not a magic one.