Editor: I Wouldn't Have Published Snowden's Secrets

Snaring access to Edward Snowden, and all the documents in his possession, has generally been regarded a huge coup for the Guardian newspaper. But at least two other British newspapers don't agree. Following claims by MI5's new chief that the paper's exposes have been a "guide book" for terrorists (you can read about it at the Daily Mail), the former editor—and current group content director—of the UK's Independent, Chris Blackhurst, has written an op-ed arguing that the Guardian's decision to publish was dangerous and not what he would have done. "If the security services insist something is contrary to the public interest, and might harm their operations, who am I ... to disbelieve them?" he writes.

Blackhurst's column comes just days after an even more inflammatory Daily Mail editorial labeling the Guardian as "the paper that helps Britain's enemies." Though the paper acknowledges that "a line needs to be drawn" between civil liberties and the interests of national security, it believes "the Guardian, with lethal irresponsibility, has crossed that line by printing tens of thousands of words describing the secret techniques used to monitor terrorists." The Guardian's response? It published opinions by editors from 33 media organizations around the world, all arguing that the paper did the right thing. (More Edward Snowden stories.)