> The second is that this guy could've remained hidden but he put his name behind the revelations rather than choosing the far safer path of being an "anonymous source". This lends his revelations more credence and you have to respect the guy for standing by his convictions. Maybe he would've been found out had he stayed in the shadows but he certainly didn't try to do that.
I think that internal auditing would have very quickly identified him as the source the moment the leaks hit the papers.
At least this way they have a little bit of a PR shitstorm if they disappear him, as opposed to if he was totally anonymous.
Also, by doing that video interview, he gets to shape the narrative a tiny bit by pointing out all the opportunity he had to be malicious that he didn't use, illustrating that he's simply not. It's hard not to like the guy.
I think that internal auditing would have very quickly identified him as the source the moment the leaks hit the papers.
At least this way they have a little bit of a PR shitstorm if they disappear him, as opposed to if he was totally anonymous.
Also, by doing that video interview, he gets to shape the narrative a tiny bit by pointing out all the opportunity he had to be malicious that he didn't use, illustrating that he's simply not. It's hard not to like the guy.