> Rusbridger is a journalist, not part of the 'political elite' He's both a journalist and part of elite society (see his salary, events he attends, social cir

> Rusbridger is a journalist, not part of the 'political elite' He's both a journalist and part of elite society (see his salary, events he attends, social circles/connections etc.) He risked nothing: His defence, as I stated in my comment, is the existence of other publishers whom he uses as actors who forced his hand and made the Guardian's publishing harmless in terms of disclosure. > The Guardian has a renowned history of liberal investigative journalism That's what every newspaper claims but it isn't true. See "Manufacturing Consent" by Herman and Chomsky. > so I struggle to understand where you gain the insight to claim Rusbridger 'would have been loath to sign off' the Snowden leaks. It is a straightforward application of common sense that is supported by critical media analysis and nearly tautological: Powerful organizations are powerful. The government has a great deal of influence on the Guardian and those who work there. Opposing the government in a serious way typically results in hardship while supporting them yields benefits. You still have to maintain the appearance of seriously challenging power so that people buy your paper but you can go far without actually having to do much of it. The only reason they got away with it this time is they can claim that they were "forced" by the fact that other newspapers also published and that their publishing wouldn't have been a factor in whether the material was disclosed. > which also partnered with Wikileaks around the time of 'Collateral Murder' etc. Same situation with multiple publishers. Even in that case they redacted names of elite, public individuals, claiming it was to protect themselves from libel allegations. > There are two false dichotomies... I never made either claim. Surely Bernstein should praise Snowden and Greenwald to the extent he has praised Rusbridger and before he praises Rusbridger? And competition is not the only factor but when competition for a particularly story exists it both forces a publisher's hand and protects them: They look foolish if they don't publish because somebody else will and they can claim their publication made no difference because someone else is going to publish anyway. In fact this might be one of the few reliable ways to pressure publishers to actually publish sensitive material: Leakers should give material to several news organizations in different countries and tell them so without disclosing the names of those organizations.