To answer your question, yes, it is more of a conflict of interest. A journalist is tasked with writing truthful articles that do not mislead the public. This h

To answer your question, yes, it is more of a conflict of interest. A journalist is tasked with writing truthful articles that do not mislead the public. This holds at least for those who portray themselves as such (e.g., by making arguments appealing to our sense of truth or reason; i.e., anyone whose opinion we should at all value). In this case, however, the journalist is directly or indirectly paid by Facebook to spin the situation. As such, this is a conflict of interest (the integrity of journalism in particular being in the interest of the public). The whistleblower must provide actionable (in court) and therefore truthful information. Such information was, by definition, kept secret from regulation authorities who are tasked with enforcing societal rules. Rewarding this the whistleblower is not a conflict of interest. I mean, you could construe the wordings to say that the conflict is between loyalty towards the firm and loyalty to society / laws, and if this is a meaningful and acceptable rather than absurd contrast, then you are probably Elon Musk. For everyone else, it is hard to see a conflict of interest here.