Its a shame that on the actual SafeSource site they don't seem to give much assurance:
Forbes does not make any representations or warranties as to SafeSource, and your use of SafeSource is on an "as is" basis, at your own risk.
I suppose it is just to cover them legally, but they could be a bit more reassuring to whistleblowers and informants who might not understand the technology very well or the credentials of those who have vouched for it like Schneier and others.
No, actual whistleblowers should be covering their own asses as much as possible with informed decisions and good opsec/infosec practices and not trusting anyone or anything else which includes the press. If a whistleblower's identity is exposed, it stands to reason media outlets have more to gain from the fallout.
Forbes does not make any representations or warranties as to SafeSource, and your use of SafeSource is on an "as is" basis, at your own risk.
I suppose it is just to cover them legally, but they could be a bit more reassuring to whistleblowers and informants who might not understand the technology very well or the credentials of those who have vouched for it like Schneier and others.