[stackedmidgets]

Before that, you'd be voted down and hollered at because there would be little credibility for it among common idiots. This has been the case for years, because a lot of the information about the NSA published by journalists was built on anonymous sourcing. Now, there's more documentary evidence available to support it, so the US government no longer enjoys the benefit of ignorant doubt.

Now, these stories can gain traction.

[untog]

Conversely, these stories were previously ignored because of a lack of supporting evidence. Now that US surveillance is a talked about topic, these stories are gaining traction without people going through the critical thought processes they otherwise would have.

Neither of these options are provably false.

[epoxyhockey]

I'll also add that there are a lot of news stories that never get published. Some newsroom editor may determine to run one story over another because it would be better received and increase ratings/traffic.

[mbel]

On the other hand, the latest revelations may be an "inspiration" for making up[0] such stories. As the demand for ominous surveillance themed news seems to be rather high right now, I guess it's one of the easiest way to gain wider attention by small publishers. After all most of the tabloids work this way, don't they?

[0] I mean, they might not be totally made up, just written in a way that suggests more than is really going on.

[MartinCron]

Or they would get fact-checked before publishing and revealed as sensationalist hyperbole.