What personal private details could outweigh critical info about a huge news story? If they really are compromising their integrity as journalists to be good loyal friends, they can expect and deserve to be criticized as bad journalists.
And if they refuse to even explain themselves then nobody can be blamed for assuming the worst. And I can imagine scenarios worse than just protecting someone's privacy. The "we can't tell you why we can't tell you" excuse is as good as nothing.
Are you suggesting that once a news story is 'huge' it outweighs any claim to privacy involved individuals might have? Neither Wired nor Greenwald believes that.
I gave examples of the kinds of personal info that might justify privscy-preserving selective log publishing: sex life, discussion of uninvolved peers, and medical/psychological details. Your imagination should be able to fill in the rest.
Wired has explained themselves and no part of their explanation talks about being 'good loyal friends'.
And if they refuse to even explain themselves then nobody can be blamed for assuming the worst. And I can imagine scenarios worse than just protecting someone's privacy. The "we can't tell you why we can't tell you" excuse is as good as nothing.