There is a stark difference between contextless, abject whistleblowing and marketed whistleblowing. The latter, which they argue against, is unfortunately required to reach the masses. They mention that Snowden should not have gone to a [semi] major media outlet but instead to others who have exposed similar issues. Doesn&#x27;t the fact that most don&#x27;t know who those others are refute their exact point?<p>More importantly, does the benefit of mass consumption of the narrative outweigh the cost of not releasing everything and financially incentivizing the releasers? I say yes.