The Washington Post published an editorial last week saying Obama should not pardon Edward Snowden, as various global groups ramp up their pardon campaign and Oliver Stone’s new movie opens in theatres.  (“Snowden,” a fictionalized version of the documentary “Citizenfour,”  has been getting pretty good reviews, such as this one by the New York Times. Seems Snowden and Stone are pretty good friends now as last week Snowden sang Stone Happy Birthday via a remote controlled robot. )

Glenn Greenwald writes in an article for his publication The Intercept that the Post is being both hypocritical and ignominious, considering the paper accepted a Pulitzer for its reporting on Snowden’s leaked information. Greenwald says the paper, one of the big four that broke the story of secret US surveillance, is committing “intellectual dishonesty” and “cowardice” by taking the stance that its own source should stand trial.

Media have been quick to denounce the Washington Post’s editorial. The Guardian published in detail why the paper is wrong, and Salon went even further with the headline: “Betraying Snowden: There’s a special place in journalism hell for The Washington Post editorial board.” Even Fortune said that the editorial is “a fundamental attack on the paper’s source and its own newsroom.”

It is baffling why a media organization would put so much effort into an investigative story, win a Pulitzer for it and then turn on its own source. A Washington Post columnist pointed out that the editorial side of the paper is completely separate from the newspaper. Margaret Sullivan published her column yesterday in the Style section of the Washington Post with the headline “As a source — and a patriot — Edward Snowden deserves a presidential pardon.”