Small nitpick: I don't agree with media focusing exclusively on the man and not the story. That being said - it's not ad hominem to open debate about credibili

Small nitpick: I don't agree with media focusing exclusively on the man and not the story. That being said - it's not ad hominem to open debate about credibility based on a person's history, intelligence, knowledge or expertise. For example, questioning if Snowden understood the documents he leaked because he does not have a high school diploma or certifiable, checkable expertise (aside from landing the access) in mass surveillance is not ad hominem. It's a reasonable way to express doubt and question someone's ability to be capable as a whistleblower. It's also reasonable because whistleblowers should be both accountable and rigorous. Character defamation on the other hand is bad. I'm not against Snowden, I just wanted to make it clear that it's not unreasonable to question him.