He pointed out that the media is the only sector in a position to take on this policy fight for an open discussion on which programmes and tactics the US government deems “for the public good.” Snowden said that the press has “unfortunately been somewhat timid about condemning [surveillance issues] in their reporting.” The choice of editorial neutrality, he said, is “understandable” from a fair-and-balanced point of view, but he urged media to be bolder.

In taking a hard line approach, media outlets could “make an actual calculation about value of these programmes and the threat that they represent to the traditional operation of the press.” If the press demands more openness from government, journalists may independently assess surveillance programmes and “we can start having a very different conversation” about whose interests the government is protecting.

Edward Snowden to journalists: “Try to put yourself in the position of the source.”

On the relationship between journalists and whistleblowers, Snowden sees media as necessary intermediaries when it comes to leaked data. He chose to give his US National Security Agency (NSA) documents to journalists back in 2013 rather than simply publishing them online himself. He was not, after all, a high-ranking NSA employee and was very concerned about the risk he was taking for himself and others: “Maybe I didn’t know what I was talking about. Maybe I was making a huge mistake. I didn’t want to harm anyone.”

Author and professor Dan Gillmor, leading the interview via video chat

In order to control the risk he was taking, Snowden explains, “I set out to devise a system in which I could mitigate those risks to the maximum extent possible by imitating the model of checks and balances that was supposed to exist in the United States government.” In order for Snowden to grant journalists access to the documents he believed would “demonstrate criminal activities that had occurred within government” two essential conditions needed to be met in his ad-hoc check-and-balance system.

First, every story needed to serve the public interest “in a democratic context” — “that is wasn’t just newsy”.

Second, news organisations needed to approach the government in advance of publication, not for a veto, but to explain what they were planning to write, why they were planning to write it and to see if they understood the story fully. The journalists also needed to ask if they were going too far and putting individuals at risk, i.e. revealing an agent behind enemy lines.