3 ms·
> I think you are assuming he allowed the destruction so that it could not be proven they had it in the first place (making him safer). No, what made him safe
by foobarqux 13y ago
> I think you are assuming he allowed the destruction so that it could not be proven they had it in the first place (making him safer).
No, what made him safer was obeying the government and also, I presume, removing himself from direct involvement in reporting the story.
That's why the portrayal of courage and rebellion is laughable.
- lifeisstillgood 13y agoHe has removed himself and any reporter not based in New York. He knows the strength of the first amendment in US courts, National Security letters or not. No UK reporter will do any work on surveillance any more, simply because the UK has too much power over the press when it really wants to. Going to court in the US gives him a near certain win, going to court in the UK a near certain loss. To paraphrase Napoleon: I would rather have a clever editor than a brave one, and a lucky editor than a clever one. He got lucky with the UK destroying the disks in a heavy handed manner.
- foobarqux 13y agoFine, describe him as clever or lucky but not courageous or standing up to power.