I've heard this "if it were happening someone would leak it" argument throughout my life, even though I've lost count of all the counterexamples that disprove this mentality.

Before Snowden PRISM was considered impossible (even though previous people had leaked it but never got picked up by the media cycle), before Epstein it was impossible that billionaires were trafficking children for sex, before 2008 it was impossible that wall street was colluding to rig the market - the consistent thread in all of these is that the "impossible" was happening for several years before it was ever exposed.

I understand the incentive to leak it exists, but that doesn't mean there isn't a stronger incentive to keep it a secret.

The difference in all the examples you’ve given here is that none of the people involved are journalists.

If you work on PRISM leaking its existence does nothing for your career. Quite the opposite in fact. But if you work for a newspaper and leak a massive story it’ll be very beneficial for your career.

The journalist most famous for leaking the Panama Papers died under mysterious circumstances. And almost nobody is aware of her name or even what's inside the Panama Papers.

How many famous journalists can you name? I'm not saying there aren't journalists that want to do good work and become famous as a result. But despite their efforts they're mostly fighting a losing battle.

> How many famous journalists can you name?

I’m not sure how that’s relevant. Ask a dozen people on the street who John Carmack is I’m sure you’d get a lot of blank faces. But if he walked into a dev shop looking for a job I think he’d probably get one.

Of course breaking a massive story is going to lead to you being well known. Perhaps only within journalistic circles but in the context of your career that’s the only thing that matters anyway.

(and to answer anecdote with anecdote: Woodward and Bernstein. Both have lived to ripe old ages, too, for what it’s worth)

> Of course breaking a massive story is going to lead to you being well known.

My argument is the opposite. You can break a massive story and people can still not care. That was why I brought up the Panama Papers.

Anyway, let's just agree to disagree.

But again your definition of “people” is the general population and they aren’t the ones hiring and firing journalists.

The Panama Papers were a huge story, they won a Pulitzer! If you’re a journalist of course a story like that is going to open doors.

You're completely ignoring my point. The journalist was rewarded with murder.

I feel like you're not actually considering what I'm saying and I'm exiting this conversation.

Your point is that because one journalist was killed for a story that no other journalist could ever possibly be rewarded for breaking a huge story?

You know how there is a principle during debate where you should treat your opponent's argument charitably, by taking their meaning in the best possible way?

You just did the exact opposite.

Did you say career ending moment? I think I misread that. Who wants a former employee and their lawyers targeting your reputation. Do you know anything about what whistleblowers have to go through?

> Do you know anything about what whistleblowers have to go through?

We’re talking about professional journalists here. I’m quite sure they’re aware of it all. If the story is newsworthy and backed by evidence you’d be able to take it to any competing newspaper. I imagine the Wall Street Journal’s legal team would be happy to bear the brunt of any fallout, it’s their job.

Just as the fact nobody is testing nuclear weapons suggests they don't exist.

Career defining? Nobody wants to hire rats that you can't trust.

One person's rat is another's whistleblower. For a journalist, it'd absolutely be a career defining story.

Bezos might consider that person a rat, I’m quite sure fellow journalists would not.