This story about McBride's motivations really only makes sense if you're motivated to come up with some kind of post facto reasoning for why McBride is a bad guy for leaking the documents, while ABC reporters are heroes for selectively publishing them. Never passed the pub test, thanks for the link.

I'm not splitting hairs about if he's a (accidental) whistleblower or not (which is what that article seems to be about). He's never denied that his initial intentions for the documents were completely different than what transpired.

"He told another media outlet at the time that it was a “different story to the one I wanted. They (ABC) published something about SAS soldiers shooting people by accident, which I found disappointing.”"