> Given the context (national/international security) is that really surprising? People who have their necks on the line aren't jumping out of the woodwork to c

> Given the context (national/international security) is that really surprising? People who have their necks on the line aren't jumping out of the woodwork to comment? C'mon, think. No, you really need to do a bit more thinking. A journalist shouldn't just publish what an anonymous source says without corroborating their story with other evidence. You can keep your source anonymous, but they need to provide some physical evidence or you need to confirm it some other way. Exhibit A, how Greenwald handled Snowden. Every story he had was based off documents provided that could be examined and published as evidence. Everything was based on physical evidence collected by Snowden, not just some stories he told. If a journalist just took anonymous sources stories at face value w/o evidence anyone associated with an intelligence agency could feed in false information whenever they... oh wait, could that be happening here?? And Greenwald himself goes into a lot more detail about it here, just got on the frontpage on HN: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/14/sunday-times-report-snowden-files-journalism-worst-also-filled-falsehoods/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/14/sunday-times-r...