<story><title>Washington Post Is First Paper to Call for Prosecution of Its Own Source</title><url>https://theintercept.com/2016/09/18/washpost-makes-history-first-paper-to-call-for-prosecution-of-its-own-source-after-accepting-pulitzer/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>20yrs_no_equity</author><text>I worked at Amazon, I interacted with Jeff Bezos, the Washington Post doing this does not surprise me. It is effectively his political blog, where he gets to push his agenda while being abstracted away from responsibility. (EG: Amazon PR can continue its campaign of BS propaganda without WashPo articles hurting them or Bezos.)</text></item><item><author>lisper</author><text>Indeed, it must be emphasized that Snowden deliberately did &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; disclose &lt;i&gt;any&lt;/i&gt; of the information he had collected publicly.  He specifically wanted &lt;i&gt;someone else&lt;/i&gt; to make the decision about what (if anything) should be disclosed, and he specifically wanted &lt;i&gt;journalists&lt;/i&gt; to make that decision.&lt;p&gt;For the Post to stab Snowden in the back this way is the worst treachery, cowardice, and hypocrisy that I have ever witnessed.</text></item><item><author>eadz</author><text>This is an important article and adds some real context to Washington Post&amp;#x27;s editorial. This quote sums it up.&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  But still, if the Post editorial page editors now want to
  denounce these revelations, and even call for the 
  imprisonment of their paper’s own source on this ground,
  then they should at least have the courage to acknowledge
  that it was The Washington Post — not Edward Snowden — who
  made the editorial and institutional choice to expose those
  programs to the public.
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
The Washington Post&amp;#x27;s editors decided these stories were in the public interest and should be published, not Snowden.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>benregenspan</author><text>Fred Hiatt has run the Washington Post editorial page since 2000 and this editorial is entirely consistent with his past work. He&amp;#x27;s always pushed neoconservative positions and taken the word of sources like the House intelligence committee at face value. Amazon might well have financial interests in US intelligence, but it&amp;#x27;s very easy to imagine this same editorial being written with or without Bezos as the owner of the paper.</text></comment>
<story><title>Washington Post Is First Paper to Call for Prosecution of Its Own Source</title><url>https://theintercept.com/2016/09/18/washpost-makes-history-first-paper-to-call-for-prosecution-of-its-own-source-after-accepting-pulitzer/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>20yrs_no_equity</author><text>I worked at Amazon, I interacted with Jeff Bezos, the Washington Post doing this does not surprise me. It is effectively his political blog, where he gets to push his agenda while being abstracted away from responsibility. (EG: Amazon PR can continue its campaign of BS propaganda without WashPo articles hurting them or Bezos.)</text></item><item><author>lisper</author><text>Indeed, it must be emphasized that Snowden deliberately did &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; disclose &lt;i&gt;any&lt;/i&gt; of the information he had collected publicly.  He specifically wanted &lt;i&gt;someone else&lt;/i&gt; to make the decision about what (if anything) should be disclosed, and he specifically wanted &lt;i&gt;journalists&lt;/i&gt; to make that decision.&lt;p&gt;For the Post to stab Snowden in the back this way is the worst treachery, cowardice, and hypocrisy that I have ever witnessed.</text></item><item><author>eadz</author><text>This is an important article and adds some real context to Washington Post&amp;#x27;s editorial. This quote sums it up.&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  But still, if the Post editorial page editors now want to
  denounce these revelations, and even call for the 
  imprisonment of their paper’s own source on this ground,
  then they should at least have the courage to acknowledge
  that it was The Washington Post — not Edward Snowden — who
  made the editorial and institutional choice to expose those
  programs to the public.
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
The Washington Post&amp;#x27;s editors decided these stories were in the public interest and should be published, not Snowden.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>ReadingInBed</author><text>This is a good point. As far as I remember Amazon had&amp;#x2F;has a contract with the CIA for 100s of millions. When the rich own the media there is always a risk that they will hire those that push their agenda. Amazon could greatly profit from government contracts. I wouldn&amp;#x27;t argue one article proves a conspiracy, but it&amp;#x27;s so incredibly hypocritical that you have to wonder why WaPo would publish it. Especially when it means future leakers might not want to go to them for fear they will work with the govt to imprison them.</text></comment>