Reaction to the revelations by Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger that he was put under pressure by "shadowy Whitehall figures" which led to the destruction of hard drives overseen by "two GCHQ security experts" has been surprisingly muted.

Some websites - such as the Daily Telegraph's - have ignored the story thus far. The Times's online report is here. The Independent carried a mention in a story re-nosed to take account of the decision by David Miranda to sue the police over his airport detention. The Daily Mail's website has carried two pieces so far today on the destruction of the hard drives, here and here.

But there has been an absence of comment, even after Rusbridger's interview on Radio 4's World At One, in which he outlined the exact nature of the government pressure and the resulting "bizarre situation." He also explained just why destruction was the best option.

Abroad, there has been intense interest in Rusbridger's confrontation with security officials, just as there was for the detention of Miranda.

A Washington Post news story referred to Rusbridger's article as "a remarkable post" in a separate headlined piece. USA Today also headlined the story here. Oddly, the New York Times carried a mention only at the end of a news story on David Miranda's detention. Nothing as I write on the Wall Street Journal website, though it does carry a Miranda story.

The Australian newspaper thought it worthy of reporting, here as did the Australian broadcaster, ABC, here. France's Le Monde carried a story here and the Russian news site, Russia Today, headlined its story "UK ordered Guardian to destroy hard drives in effort to stop Snowden revelations." In Sri Lanka, the Colombo Telegraph carried a very detailed report.

Press freedom groups have, naturally enough, highlighted both the Miranda and Rusbridger stories. Reporters Without Borders reported on them here and Index on Censorship issued a statement calling the hard drive destruction "a direct attack on press freedom." A hard-hitting Human Rights Watch statement condemned the Miranda detention, saying it appeared to be aimed at intimidating journalists.

One thoughtful, and somewhat counter-intuitive, domestic response came from Charlie Beckett, director of POLIS at the London School of Economics, who asked: Who is winning the information war, security services or the new disruptive journalists?

"Before we all sink into a slough of digital dystopian despair," he writes, "it might be worth considering this: is this a sign of the strength, not weakness, of revelatory journalism in the digital age?"

And he concludes: "Political journalism has always been and always will be a struggle between those who have power and those who seek to expose its workings.

"I don't know how you measure who's winning at the moment but certainly the rules of engagement are changing because of new technologies and globalisation."