Thread by @jedshug

"There isn't much of a track record of Russians assassinating former spies." Yes, @KenDilanianNBC actually said this in his own defense. Dumbfounding. He and NBC owe some better answers for endangering an asset for no apparent journalistic purpose. He certainly didn't offer one.

https://twitter.com/KenDilanianNBC/status/1171273821481066496

@KenDilanianNBC *former asset.
This segment reflects terribly on Brian Williams, too. When @KenDilanianNBC says "There isn't much of a track record of Russians assassinating former spies," what journalist - or sentient being - doesn't ask, "You're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking."

@KenDilanianNBC In the clip, Ken suggested the Russians already knew, but to his credit, he also acknowledged his story put the former asset into the spotlight, thus increased the danger as a bad precedent of impunity.
But even worse, he still offered no justification for increasing this risk.

@KenDilanianNBC I tried to add this clarification in the thread, but failed, so I add it again to be fair:
The full quote:
"There isn't much of a track record of Russians assassinating former spies now under CIA protection."
But the qualifier "CIA protection" seems a convenient rationalization.

3 questions for @KenDilanianNBC @msnbc @NBCNews:
1. What was the journalistic value of this story? That the CIA is doing bad job protecting him? Seems like the ex-spy himself was taking the risk by using his real name...
This reduces the newsworthiness value...

2. What was the urgency that @NBCnews couldn’t give the CIA a heads up and a head start to move him and his family?
@KenDilanianNBC acknowledged they hadn’t been moved yet.
Was the “urgency” trying to keep up with @cnn?

3. In addition to questions about the urgency of publishing this story at all yesterday, what was the newsworthiness for @msnbc to do wall-to-wall coverage with @KenDilanianNBC from @maddow, @Lawrence, @11thHour, but so little preparation to address these obvious questions?