I'm really excited! I like the incremental release, I think it builds momentum in the way that a full dump could not. Just as one story has been thoroughly explored, the next one comes out.
That's why companies often need PR consultants. Because they are tempted to try to keep stuff under wraps, even when it's slowly trickling out. They need an adult to tell them "people will find out anyway, so just dump the whole thing in a press release on a Friday, so you get it all out in one headline". Plus, reporters will be reporting your spin on it, and you look like you've made an honest mistake and are coming clean.
The NSA should probably figure out what's getting leaked, then spoil the PR attack by coming clean. Somehow, I can't see them doing it.
They release some tantalizing tidbits (they are tidbits, aren't they? we already had heard about the metadata in 2006, didn't we?), and at the peak of interest (where did this come from?!?) release Snowden's identity in a carefully crafted video. They maximize control over his story before the government even has any idea who he is, before they can even think how to paint a picture of him in a negative light. Once the media has spent its powder covering Snowden (letting him speak for himself in a gorgeous HD video), there is little the government can do to add to the story; Snowden's identity is largely frozen in the picture that Greenwald et al have painted, while the government PR machine is struggling to come up with a cohesive strategy, let alone a response.
Then, after the Snowden story has run its course (at the point where talking about Snowden any more will mean losing viewers), they drop the big disclosures. At least that's my prediction. So what might the next disclosures be? This is pure paranoid speculation, but I think Snowden hinted at it in the video: the government is recording all telephone conversations, but storing it according to a legal theory that says that as long as no one actually listens to the recordings, they don't need a warrant. They obtain a warrant that is individual-specific, but instead of using that warrant to capture evidence of current actions, they use that warrant to retrieve all of the target's past activities.
99.99% of Americans will see their local TV news slamming the guy on any character assassination angles they can come up with.
Sure, a majority of Americans won't have seen it, but a majority don't give a crap about this kind of thing at all. I would say that for most people who were paying attention, the video had an impact.
http://www.mpopost.com/most-americans-rely-on-television-for...
I'd imagine it wouldn't be hard to predict their responses to each type of revelation.
They try to downplay the scope of the snooping? Retort with documents showing the number of collaborating service providers and types of materials gathered.
They try to downplay the impact of this on innocent Americans? Release documents showing specific abuses.
etc. and ad nauseaum until the hypocrites, phonies, and apologists are exposed for exactly what they are.
I suppose only time will tell, but I know a lot of people that are getting more and more interested in this.
Its not like Brook's facile drivel takes all that much effort; its not like its designed to stand up to scrutiny by anyone thinking deeply, its just to give people an excuse not to think deeply.