My biggest problem with that argument is that it comes from people who claim to care about the documents being released but haven't actually studied them, couldn't tell you how many documents have been released, couldn't tell you the process under which they're being released and when, etc etc, but simply regurgitate the talking point because they've heard so many others say it.

(This is probably worth a post in and of itself but here we go anyway)

The original files were HTML with images stripped out and all the internal links broken (because they came from the NSA's intranet)

They weren't publishable or easily searchable, they had to be handled one by one and converted to static PDF files. While journalists have cherry picked single documents that they deem to be important and reported on them in the public interest, the reality is that it has taken time and resources to prep the batches for release.

Each batch has 250-300 files, 5 have been released so far, they appear in chronological order, and what is inside them is completely phenomenal but largely completely ignored BOTH by media AND by critics of the way The Intercept chose to release the files. It seems that the argument about whether they did the right or wrong thing is more important to people than actually finding out what is inside the files they are arguing about. :(

Provided that The Intercept keep prepping and releasing the batches of documents, I'm giving them a pass, and in fact I can't wait to see the documents lead cohesively up to 2013 (we are currently at 2005-2006, the first documents having started post 9/11). It's a fascinating process and I'm grateful for the work that has been done to get so many files out to the public for scrutiny, even if most of the public hasn't seized the chance to perform that scrutiny! (Which is what #DecipherYou is all about - trying to help do it for them, and stir up interest in what is really in these files!!)