An investigative journalist should absolutely try to help their source stay safe from danger.
>by trying to crack someone else's password to use to get access to the same documents you're effectively _setting that person up_ as a patsy
The account they were attempting to access was a generic windows admin account tied to nobody. A perfect patsy.
I'm not sure "commit more federal crimes" is "staying safe from danger"
> The account they were attempting to access was a generic windows admin account tied to nobody. A perfect patsy.
This I did not know. My above point still stands, but at least no innocent third parties are being also dragged into things, absolutely.
If your options are "commit more victimless federal crimes" or "allow the army to punish you" it is.
We should all just blame the Russians, right? Please, in all cases where media organizations were implicated in spreading falsehoods, this is completely mundane.
> A constitutional democracy would probably investigate Chelsea Manning for violating official secrecy because she passed the video along to Assange. But it certainly wouldn’t go after Assange, because he published the video in the public interest, consistent with the practices of classic investigative journalism.
An investigative journalist wouldn't suggest to their source that they cover their trails and implicate innocent third parties in the egressing of confidential data[1], assist their source with cracking passwords, passively and actively ("I'm working on it, no luck yet"), or in the event that Assange was doing neither, just leading Manning on, would not lie to their sources while again, still encouraging them to break the law.
[1] by trying to crack someone else's password to use to get access to the same documents you're effectively _setting that person up_ as a patsy.