They state at the very outset that they worked on the data for over a year, doing OCR, analyzing, digesting, cross-referencing, etc. No one is presenting a false front -- they aren't claiming that this is a bunch of files that they got yesterday, and instead are quite up front that they've done a lot of leg work on top of it.

So yes, the presentation was clearly "planned". That doesn't make the data any less real.

> it's clear they this leak is planned

But you haven't produced any real evidence for this claim.

The ICIJ has co-ordinated the reporting on the leak, sure; but that's not the same as claiming the leak itself was in bad faith, part of some wider state-sponsored conspiracy from G20 nations, etc.

It would lose credibility if it was just a dump. Some would claim its false, others would alter it, to the point that enough confusion would be created to make it totally untrustworthy. Unfortunately thats how manipulation works.

Planned by whom? To what end? Do you have any information to substantiate this claim?

I'm referencing the fact that some leaks you get the whole enchilada and it's up to you or the media to sift though.

In the case it's a leak which is being funnelled by the reporters.

Maybe this is because of legal reasons, I have no idea, but would it not be better they just dumped the whole data set onto the web?

Did you have this same position with the Snowden leaks? Dump it on the web and it lacks credibility. Filter it through journalists who can use their resellers to make sense of it and the public gets to hear the important repercussions of the leak instead of having to try and figure it all out themselves.

At least they were transparent to exactly why the information was filtered. Credibility is certainly a good point but 100 people are going to have issue with sifting through terabytes of data.

Why not both?