The majority of of the article discusses the latest information about the NSA, and how we should hold NSA officials responsible for repeatedly lying to congress. Did you even bother to read it?
monsterix is talking about the third sentence in the article, which links to another article on the same website with the opposing view point.
Its title is "Edward Snowden is No Hero," and it contains sentiments like, "He is, rather, a grandiose narcissist who deserves to be in prison," and, "As a result, all of Snowden’s secrets may wind up in the hands of the Chinese government—which has no commitment at all to free speech or the right to political dissent. And that makes Snowden a hero?"
Except that's a critique of the publication rather than pertaining to the content of the article itself, which I don't think is a fair reason to flag a posted article. Posted articles should be evaluated on their own merits.
To address monstrix point though, I don't agree that each publication should be expected to take one side. It really depends on the type of publication and their chosen structure; some publish for the "left" or the "right", while others are willing to publish articles from authors with differing political views. The New Yorker (which I happen to subscribe to) is the latter type of publication - they publish a variety of authors who argue their own viewpoints, generally a great selection of fiction, poetry, and non-fiction.
One additional thought: I think it's a good thinking tool to read well-written opposing views to get inside the mind of one's rhetorical opponent in order to understand an issue from multiple viewpoints when forming opinions and arguments.
