It was inevitable that as the Edward Snowden saga played out, media attention would shift from the former National Security Agency contactor's dramatic revelations to the leaker himself.
First came the flurry of stories debating whether Snowden was a heroic whistle-blower or a traitor. In recent weeks, attention has focused on his frantic attempts to find refuge: Leaving Hawaii for Hong Kong. Washing up in Russia. Languishing in Sheremetyevo airport. Weighing offers of safe haven from Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua,
Worthy subjects, to be sure. The identity and character of the man who leaked so many secrets about the United States government's surveillance programs are certainly fair game. So is the fascinating cat-and-mouse maneuvering as Snowden tries to elude U.S. efforts to bring him to justice.
What's important is not to let the focus on Snowden the man and Snowden the fugitive overshadow the substance of his leaks. The documents Snowden has released reveal massive and covert government surveillance efforts. The gathering of "telephony metadata" and e-mails of so many U.S. citizens with absolutely no suspected links to terrorism is a significant erosion of privacy that desperately needs to be aired.
But to the surprise of absolutely no one, the Snowden screenplay has largely dominated the coverage as scrutiny of the substance has subsided.
A recent New York Times piece is a vivid reminder both of why the actual leaks shouldn't remain on the back burner, and how Snowden's actions have had an important impact by bringing the surveillance programs out of the shadows.
On Sunday, The Times' lead story reported that the supersecret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court "has created a secret body of law giving the National Security Agency the power to amass vast collections of data on Americans while pursuing not only terrorism suspects, but also people possibly involved in nuclear proliferation, espionage and cyberattacks, officials say."
The story said that the 11-member court, whose original focus was approving government wiretap requests case by case, had now become "almost a parallel Supreme Court, serving as the ultimate arbiter on surveillance issues and delivering opinions that will most likely shape intelligence practices for years to come, the officials said."
This is a huge deal. The court hears only the government's side before making its decisions. It almost always gives the government what it wants. Its proceedings are secret. And yet this body is shaping a body of law that affects the civil liberties of all Americans.
The far-reaching scope and power of this opaque outfit represent a massive departure from what has generally thought to be the American rule of law.
This is a subject that should receive prominent attention on the nation's front pages and home pages. It should be fodder for the endless pundit wars on cable, right up there with the latest hiccup in the George Zimmerman trial. It shouldn't be the sole province of the executive branch of government and pliant judges with no accountability.
There was an immediate frisson of reaction when Snowden's disclosures first appeared in Britain's Guardian newspaper and in The Washington Post. The Obama administration was forced to play defense, saying that a national debate over surveillance was in order and ordering up a review of the controversial programs.
But there has been nothing like the massive outpouring of national revulsion that would be needed to bring about immediate change. Polls show the public is decidedly mixed on the subject. In the wake of 9/11, if the government asserts giving up some of your freedom will make you safer, many people are OK with that.
Gene Roberts, the great journalist who was once managing editor of The New York Times and executive editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, likes to talk about stories that don't so much erupt as "ooze." And it may be that government spying is one of those.
While the issue is hardly at the top of the charts, it is now a matter of public discourse, which it certainly wasn't pre-Snowden. That New York Times lead story is no doubt a result of the new landscape the slacker/leaker has created.
And it's not over yet. On Tuesday, for example, a former member of the surveillance court, appearing before the board set up by President Obama to examine government surveillance, testified that the secret judicial process was deeply flawed. "Anyone who has been a judge will tell you a judge needs to hear both sides of a case," said ex-judge James Robertson.
Ya think?
More significant, it may well be that more disturbing disclosures loom. In response to a column by Politico's Dylan Byers suggesting that the surveillance story was fizzling out, the Guardian's Glenn Greenwald, who has broken many of the Snowden scoops, e-mailed Byers, "There are many more domestic stories coming, and big ones, and soon."
It's way too soon to consider this case closed.