Honest question, where is the boundary of reporting illegally obtained material from a source? If somebody hacked Trump's EMRs and told the world his risk of a heart attack, it would seem to cross a line that no legitimate journalist would pursue. But then you have Panama papers, etc, which in general are for the greater good. Are the standards codified somewhere?
panama papers was a joke. while there was some meat in there that nobody pursued — not even the laughable conglomerate of teethless establishment journalism — its sole purpose was to focus the electorate on the most populist election topic: tax evasion. so, the boundary pendle-swings within the bounds of political correctness.
I don't think there are globally accepted standards. In this specific case, in which the captured data shows clear misconduct by prosecutors working together with a conflicted judge who selectively leaked private data to the public, is that the data is of public interest and the means by which it was obtained are a lesser issue and not Greenwald's responsibility. All communications between government employees in their professional capacity should be public anyway and have no expectation of privacy.
3 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 18.9 ms ] thread