I think Rich makes abundantly clear his attitude toward the subject. The first clue is in the title with the use of the jaunty TV-trope phrase "Jumped The Shark". The evocation of a television audience turning away from an extravagant display which it no longer finds entertaining is deliberate. In his leading sentence, Rich characterizes Snowden's actions as a Hollywood chase scene. The first paragraph closes thus: "The public was not much interested in the leaks in the first place. It was already moving on to Paula Deen." The entirety of the article which follows should be read bearing in mind this metaphorical framing of news as sordid entertainment. Rich is not merely padding his word count.
The objection that not everyone appears on reality TV is facile, limp, and evasive. Rich is examining the prevailing attitudes of our society. It is absurd to claim as a counter to Rich that Americans value their privacy when the polling clearly indicates otherwise. Rich predicts that gadget-hungry consumers will invite still more and still deeper invasions of their privacy. This is main theme of the piece: public apathy to government's snooping contrasted with an ever-expanding lust for exposure of any sort. Rich is like an astonished observer of a preposterous, grotesque spectacle; he shrugs in disbelief, but this is hardly the same as admonishing we should just take our lumps.
David, my interpretation of Rich's piece squares with yours. I think Mike has failed to discern Rich's sardonic tone, and most of the commentators here have made the same error. At the bottom of page three, for example, he makes the same observation that echoes Brian McFadden's cartoon of two weeks ago (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/19/1216784/-One-nation-under-surveillance): "Little short of a leak stating that the NSA is tracking gun ownership is likely to kindle public outrage."
To argue that because some people choose to reveal some things, we should all just shut up about actual privacy violations by the government is ridiculous.
Traffic != reading. About a hundred times a day my browser lands somewhere I didn't intend, and I immediately click away without reading anything. It seems to me that discussion should be factored into the equation as it shows that readers are engaged.
I think what you're getting at is the suggestion that this guy's unnecessarily aggressive attitude is a posture adopted to conceal his own insecurity. Next time can you do it without the massively offensive homophobic slurs?