> But it’s also worth it to consider whether the lack of awareness/awe over Stuxnet vis a vis Russian election tampering is simply due to technology illiteracy, or whether media is not considering the notability of the means, just the effect of the ends.

No, it's because the media is ultimately subservient to power regardless of what they might think of themselves. US attacks on countries designated by power as enemies -- Iran, Venezuela, Russia, etc., are only to be discussed in clinical terms, marveling at their technological sophistication, for example, never in moral terms. Bringing up any introspection of what American reaction would be if Iran did the same thing to us is virtually career suicide for a mainstream media professional. Trying to draw parallels between Russia meddling and Stuxnet, noting that Stuxnet was an attack many times worse, is cutting it dangerously close.

That may be the larger factor, but I also believe that if you control for the media perspective on the perpetrator and targets of separate incidents, something like Stuxnet and its sophistication will be given less emphasis, because its sophistication is beyond the public's technology literacy, and would be considered too "inside baseball".

Also, let's not forget Libya. Compare Libya before Benghazi to now.

To me the astro-turfing--which is still going on btw--is the most impressive/scariest part of the whole thing. It basically means there is a constant undercurrent of motivated Russian trolls tipping the scales of perception on every single news story, online poll, comments section, social platform, clickbait site, etc. It basically means that the internet is even more a reality distortion field than we imagined, and there is no real bottom. Imagine hooking up decent conversational AIs to do this, and scaling this all the way up to drown out the real conversation.