On October 7, The Washington Post published a story about Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai, an Al Qaeda operative laughably described as “detained” by U.S. Special Operations forces over the previous weekend. (He was detained in front of his house in Tripoli, then detained all the way to New York, where he appeared in a federal court to plead not guilty to charges of terrorism.) The source for most of the story was an American official “who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an intelligence assessment.”

It is the fashion in U.S. newspapers these days, and sometimes even the rule, to add credibility to leaks by telling us why leakers are leaking and why we ought to believe them. The Post’s ombudsman says that the “standards and ethics” policies of the Post require Post writers to supply as much detail as they can “about why our unnamed sources deserve our confidence.” However, “to discuss an intelligence assessment” obscures more than it clarifies. Why should we believe this American official just because he is discussing an intelligence assessment? (“Oh, I see. You’re discussing an intelligence assessment. That’s all right then. Carry on leaking!”)

In fact, this leak, like many or even most, was almost certainly an official leak. Far from being trouble, these leaks are a part of the corporation or agency’s public relations effort. Government officials and corporate executives don’t like leaks, except for when they do.

The media, on the other hand, like leaks except for when they don’t. The Post is a great trafficker of leaks, but it does not care for Edward Snowden, the “fugitive contractor” (as the Post called him in an editorial last July), guilty of “unpredictable behavior and mounting toxicity.” The editorial did not mention that the Post itself had published much of the Snowden material. Like The Guardian's freelance troublemaker—and I mean that as a compliment—Glenn Greenwald, it came from Snowden. The Post said that “the first U.S. priority should be to prevent Mr. Snowden from leaking information that harms efforts to fight terrorism and conduct legitimate intelligence operations.”

In a different editorial, the Post supported the prosecution of another leaker, Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning. (I should say here that I don’t mean to pick on the Post. I only use it as an example for reasons of convenience.) “No system of secrecy can function if people ignore the rules with impunity; it is reasonable that Pfc. Manning be punished in some way for breaking those rules,” the paper concluded. Punished how? The usual way in this country is prison, though perhaps the Post has something more imaginative in mind, like forcing Manning to read all the documents she lifted and then submit to an exam on their contents.