The Washington Post evidently has a very peculiar set of journalistic ethics. On Saturday, it made history by becoming the first ever newspaper to call for the criminal prosecution of its own source.
The article is a truly astounding piece of hypocrisy. It is a serious contender for much coveted award of most mendacious, duplicitous, misleading, disingenous piece of propaganda in the history of the mendacious, misleading, disingenuous, duplicitious, propagandist corporate media.
Edward Snowden provided the Washington Post (and other newspapers) with information on how the United States was spying on the world. He did not publish any of this material. He gave it to what he thought were reputable journalists and trusted them to make responsible journalistic decisions about what was in the public interest.
The Washington Post published material Snowden had provided. It did so in the public interest. As a result, it received a Putlizer Prize for Public Service.
Now the Washington Post turns around and claims that the Snowden material published was not in the public interest and put US national security at risk. If the editors at the Post truly believe this they should be calling, not for Snowden to face criminal prosecution, but for the criminal prosecution of the Washington Post and its editors - they are the ones who put this information into the public domain.
The only public service of the Snowden leaks that the Washington Post acknowledges is the domestic metadata spying. However, the Post did not publish these revelations; they were published by the Guardian. Rather, the Washington Post published precisely the information the editors now claim damaged US national security.
The editors at the Washington Post now appear to think that US spying on the rest of the world is perfectly legitimate and should be kept secret. So although they accept that citizens of the United States have rights, including the right to privacy, they do not accept that such rights apply to the other ninety-five percent of the world's population.
The editors at the Washington Post have a very peculiar notion of ethics. They apparently believe it is perfectly acceptable to benefit from publishing information and to call for the source of that information to be put in a cage.