"Office of the director of national intelligence also suggests stories published by the Guardian and New York Times are 'not news'" I've noticed one of the bes

"Office of the director of national intelligence also suggests stories published by the Guardian and New York Times are 'not news'" I've noticed one of the best ways to kill or slowdown the outrage over news like this is to write comments such as "this isn't news...it's old stuff "we" already knew...so what's so the big deal?!" - even though that's completely ridiculous, because if the person making that comment "knew about it" because he's been one of those "conspiracy nuts", as they used to be called pre-Snowden, it doesn't mean that everyone knew about what the NSA could do, and what has done. Besides, even now we don't actually know the full extent of what NSA has been doing. So it's very disingenuous to make comments such as "we knew that already" in an effort to kill outrage over it (whether intentional or not). I don't know if NSA has noticed this strategy, too, and are now using it on purpose (just like they're already using psy-ops), but at the very least saying that what the Guardian and NYT unveiled is "not news" is lying to our faces, because just yesterday they were trying to get these stories from getting published. So which is it, NSA? Is it "not news", or are you trying to stop them from getting published, because it's news? I know NSA and the administration have gotten very good at using words meaning the opposite of what they're doing (like Newspeak), but they can't have their cake and eat it, too. Either "everyone already knew this", or "the revelations are helping the enemy". Pick one.