I'm not understanding how this is a "rogue government Twitter account" versus just a "Twitter account".
Is it supposed to somehow look like an official government account?
Is it supposed to somehow look like an official government account?
I think a more fair comparison would be to when scientists were gagged in Canada, under the Prime Minister Harper era.
One of many sad examples: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harperman-tony-turner-scient... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei50lM6ab1c
Of course, it's not muzzling, it's "ethics violations".
And that's the problem with this whole article.
It has an audience bigger than that (who will not likely need to go to such lengths to publicly voice dissent), but it's fairly clear about its intent.
Plus, a journalist would have the contacts to verify the information. Traditionally, the government doesn't lie to American journalists – they may decline to comment, or give you a convoluted answer that doesn't actually answer your question. But they wouldn't lie. Considering these organisations are supposedly full of people sharing the leaker's point of view, it shouldn't be difficult to get confirmation at least off-the-record.
Of course all that requires a certain amount of trust in the media.