It was a scandal that would’ve astonished George Orwell himself, writes Alan Rusbridger, editor-in-chief of The Guardian, in the prologue to Luke Harding’s latest work, The Snowden Files, preparing the readers for a detailed account of the Snowden saga. The Snowden Files tells the story of the former US government contractor who brought the National Security Agency (NSA) to its knees, and along with it, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), its British counterpart, for collaborating and partnering with the US.

Telling the story of the “most extraordinary whistleblower in history,” according to Rusbridger, Harding highlights important notions of press freedom, an individual’s right to democracy, and the thin line between ignorance and moral culpability in his story about the aggressive nature of US data mining. Of course, it doesn’t come as much of a surprise that just last month The Post and The Guardian were awarded the Pulitzer Prize for their “authoritative and insightful” reporting on the NSA / GCHQ and Edward Snowden showdown.

The disclosures have spawned public debates regarding the freedom of citizens under the United States’ Constitution. Keeping the recent attacks on newspapers and journalists here at home in mind, it is worth noting the challenges liberal media institutions face against the state, the world over.

The Snowden Files explores, most of all, issues regarding press freedom. A large part of the book is dedicated to just the goings on within The Guardian’s offices whilst working on Snowden’s documents. This also served Harding’s purpose in employing a thriller-like tone for his book, giving it an edgy, anticipatory feel, quite like the journalists felt while working in an atmosphere where they feared the GCHQ walking in any second, seizing their files and shutting them down. The story is simply told — a thorough and cohesive re-telling of events, especially for those who were not tuned in to the news during the time the story broke — and unfolds into a fast paced, thrilling narrative.

Harding evokes every bit of nomenclature associated with theorists wary about the trappings of the 21st century, and the “impending information age,” — Aldous Huxley, Orwell, the panopticon, you name it. These references help to provide perspective to the narrative. As the book unfolds, we learn about those private and public telecom enterprises who handed over telephone records of millions of US customers, as well as access to all calls within and outside of the US. Harding does not spare Silicon Valley either. Under the PRISM programme, Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter, etc, maintain that they relinquished information regarding private user data including access to emails and browsing history when mandated by the NSA — but never willingly, they argue.

The journalists at the heart of the book are Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Ewen MacAskill — the former two handpicked by Snowden due to their commitment to “report fearlessly on controversial topics” — without whom all Snowden had was a stack of indecipherable documents. In order to deduce their meaning in the social and political realm and to explain the impact of it all, Snowden needed these journalists.

Last month, Bloomberg Businessweek published a satirical graphic map depicting, or rather lampooning, the world as the NSA perceives it, titled ‘How the NSA Sees the World,’ complete with a faux neighbourhood with listening devices placed everywhere. At about the same time, The Times reported how German chancellor Angela Merkel is still wary about the United States eavesdropping on her personal phone, emphasising how dire the consequences of the revelations has been for US foreign policy at home and amongst its “allies.”

Recent developments aside, The Snowden Files’ release itself hatched afresh the debate of public service versus national security. The Snowden revelations also came at a time when a Times editorial had vowed to better perform their duty to society as unbiased informers, not swayed by politicking or government pressure. Would Snowden have received his due credit during the Iraq war per se? One can only hope so.

However, in the era of transparency the book points out the danger of keeping those promises. Harding, in a chapter ironically titled ‘You’ve Had Your Fun,’ tells us how Rusbridger ignored several warnings by British intelligence officials regarding the publishing of the documents, upon which they sent over two GCHQ officials to make employees smash their own computers at The Guardian — under duress. The incident is highlighted as one of such dangers, at least in the United Kingdom.

On a more holistic scale, thus, Harding examines the nature and practices of the fourth estate, whilst introducing a newer fifth estate — the social media realm — along with its shortcomings, the differences in media structures, practicing journalism, and warnings that wars are now carried out in the digital realm, where nobody is spared. The book, in its details, further exposes the depth of US depravity, of aligning with software production companies to ensure programmes are built with capacity for breach by the NSA. The narrative voice is shared by Harding, Poitras and Greenwald, featuring detailed, contextual accounts from all key persons. What stands out remarkably time and time again is that Snowden is not just a whistleblower but an individual with the smarts to be able to maneuver his way around the public debate on democracy and national security, face his detractors and supporters on a national and global scale and ensure safe passage for himself across several continents. Harding writes about Snowden being notably articulate and at ease in front of the camera and requesting asylum. However, there are some notable gaps in the story, such as about Snowden’s mysterious benefactors who smuggled him out of Hong Kong.

According to a recent Vanity Fair report, Snowden was calculated not only in assessing the threat in his actions, but preemptively taking several calibrated steps in ensuring he led the course of action instead of the other way round. The report says that “Snowden was deliberately juggling the three journalists and their outlets” and that “he did not want to be pre-empted,” referring to the government’s stopping publication. Complete with a team of lawyers and a well thought out PR strategy, all geared towards finding him adequate asylum and pave a way forward, Snowden made sure he did not dig himself a hole he could not get out of, staying one step ahead of authorities the entire time. He had access to an astounding 1.7 million documents, and it is estimated that he eventually gave Greenwald and Poitras 50,000 to 200,000, according to news reports.

Public debate has so far ranged far and wide, from calling Snowden a criminal to a heroic whistleblower. Harding leaves this up to readers to decide as he delves deep into Snowden’s history, his childhood and the years spent working for the US government. The question he raises is whether Snowden acted out against the system, because he always felt like an outsider (lacking a traditional college degree), or being that very outsider allowed him to view the wrongs as they were and gave him the courage to speak out against them. However, Harding does not probe Snowden’s actions as much as one would assume.

The book does not have a hero nor is it a heroic narrative. Harding has mainly taken the stance of researcher and observer and told the story with its background and context in place. He also reminds us that for Rusbridger this story was bigger than the Murdoch wiretapping and Julian Assange put together.

Early this year, President Obama, in a speech aimed at “concrete and substantial” reforms regarding US government surveillance techniques, announced amendments in the NSA surveillance programme, amongst other changes. It would seem, thus, that Snowden derived something he had set out to do. On a more practical note, he remains in exile, isolated from his homeland. According to The New York Times, Rusbridger said he hoped that “the public service prize might lead American authorities to reassess their position on Mr Snowden.” It remains to be seen.