Sure, a source you happen to admire was made to look like a nut. That's unfortunate. But as a card-carrying member of the MSM, I have to tell you that editors are paid to make editorial decisions, and most often they make them for reasons of space, expediency and quality rather than for the conspiratorial ones you fancy. Here's what probably happened, because it happens all the time: They killed PATCON not because it "will get you killed" but because it didn't fit the larger (or smaller) purposes of the story. They had privileged access to Matthews, so they're going to ride that for all it's worth, rather than getting into PATCON. That the MSM is skeptical of conspiracy stories in general doesn't mean that they are part of a general conspiracy. And that a general-interest newsweekly runs a story that isn't the story you want it to run doesn't mean that FBI or the Clintons were calling the shots. Tina Brown calls the shots at Newsweek; that's what she gets paid for. You might like her or you might hate her; I have mixed feelings about her myself. But she, like most members of the MSM, is just doing her job, and while she might have a point of view -- so do you -- her job is fixing stories when they don't work, so that she can fix a magazine. It's not being part of an FBI "fix."
Well, now that we have THAT straight. But, actually, it is part of a fix and I'll trust my sources before I do a "card-carrying member of the MSM". Any day of the week.
The story was one thing one day.
It was another thing the next day.
In between, PATCON got cut out.
That's "fixing stories" all right.
Which was, if I recall, the whole point of the piece.