This is the Internet. Isn't there enough room here for discussions about both the message and the messenger? Or is it that when the message gets strong or important enough, the messenger gets irrelevant in comparison?
What exactly would we gain from discussing the messenger? Would that move anything forward?
What if we found out Snowden was paid by some russian agency. What exactly would that change? Would the guys at Stellar say "Oh, the russians paid him? Everyone stop changing passwords and re-issuing certificates, guys, everything's fine; he got paid by the russians", and the slides with router passwords would suddenly disappear from the face of earth?
I hope it's the language barrier and I'm failing to understand your point.
The difference seems to be about whether we SHOULD discuss the messenger. Assange still has the power to decide what to publish, and maybe more importantly when to publish it. Everyone who has a message to convey will wait for the right time to do so. This is true for political statements, for press releases, for when you ask your girlfriend to marry you or for when you tell your parents that you failed an exam. It would be silly not to accept that Assange cares about timing.
A discussion about the messenger shouldn't be seen as a dicussion about the truthfulness of the message. For example: The Russian government accused the Ukrainian government of being fascists, and one of their excuses for entering Crimea was that they needed to protect the Crimean Tatars from these fascists. But the Tatars are pro-Ukrainian, and many of them fled when the Russians took control. Those who remained are being harassed, and there are Tatars who were even denied re-entry to Crimea after having traveled to Ukraine. Sure, there are far-right extremists in Ukraine. Of course there are. But the Russians didn't want to admit that the phenomenon is far more prevalent in Russia. Knowledge of the messenger helps us to put all of this into a context.
All I'm saying is that we should be generous enough not to censor discussions just because we're not interested in them. In this case, it means discussions about both the message and the messenger. When combined, the outcomes will provide us with even more information. Ad hominem arguments like "you're obsessed with the messenger" are designed to silence one of these discussions.
If it isn't seen as a discussion about the truthfulness of the message, it should be seen as completely worthless gossip. Why would I be discussing Snowden as a person if I don't know him personally and I don't dispute the truth of his disclosures? Can't we pick a prettier celebrity to discuss to no particular end?
The only purpose in gossiping about people who disclose information which nobody seriously disputes is to confuse the simple-minded.
That's the problem you should at least be questioning that truth just like you question the truth of what the government tells you.
Think of everyday life. Ever been told only half the story? Been around gossip? Ever played the game 'telephone'? In all of these, you are receiving information, but the motivations and morals of the messenger can affect the impact and reaction to a message.
No, but surely such a discovery should alter how we interpret the message, right? Suddenly, it's impossible to discern something that US government is doing to its citizens vs/ something than an enemy of the US wants you to believe.
I really don't understand why Assange and Snowden are getting such a pass. If anything, their motivations and the source of what they are releasing should be scrutinized ten times as much as any previous whistle blower or journalist.