> I understand the point you're trying to make, but a small amount of proof is necessary to verify such claims. I wasn't trying to make the point, only to emph

> I understand the point you're trying to make, but a small amount of proof is necessary to verify such claims. I wasn't trying to make the point, only to emphasise my grandparent's point. But, for what it's worth, I agree with that point: the journalists probably needed to see the video footage as proof, but there was no need for the journalists to publish the video footage. If I don't trust reporters when they tell me that they've seen the footage themselves, then why would I trust them when they show me footage that could have come from anywhere but that they say came from a data leak?