Two entire years, though? It's like they're trying to release them just slowly e...

forgottenpass · on May 21, 2015

You say that like there is a flow rate that would make public outrage reach critical mass.

I'll contend that if the initial revelations weren't enough to reach critical mass, no rate will. The collective mass of self-serious commentators and politicians triangulate towards citizen apathy.

FFS we now know without a doubt we tortured people and it didn't reach critical mass. What happened? No war crimes trails, just some blowhards on TV defending the practice to this day.

beagle3 · on May 21, 2015

I suspect it's the other way around - as long as people are not hungry or suffering, critical mass in (most of) the west is impossible; so they drip it slowly to keep it from dying.

When Greenwald started publishing, he said something to the effect of "there's enough publishable material here for the next 10 years or so". Still a long way to go, I guess.

spada · on May 21, 2015

or helping ensure that each story gets some play in the media vs. one period of outrage and then back to business as usual.

EGreg · on May 21, 2015

Or different journalists looking to make a name for themselves after the other stories died down

krapp · on May 21, 2015

It's almost as if journalism was a business, and Snowden stories were a valuable commodity.

FLUX-YOU · on May 21, 2015

>It's like they're trying to release them just slowly enough so that public outrage never quite reaches critical mass.

That's a good way to generate a 'new normal'. I imagine there's pros/cons of that, but one of the biggest is probably not to be forgotten.