why not use the correct analogy? e.g. if a journalist (in the usa or outside) knows your employer (gov or private) committed crimes against the population and

why not use the correct analogy? e.g. if a journalist (in the usa or outside) knows your employer (gov or private) committed crimes against the population and kept proofs of it inside a toy safe, that you can open easily just by fiddling with it, and the journalist motivates you to go fiddle with the children's toy safe to get the evidence, is it: a) you and the journalists high profile spy-hackers? b) you employer a criminal, and incopetent at security?