If anyone thinks that Western news isn't propagandist then there is your proof, right there, that they are. That isn't a real news story. It isn't in the public interest. It is just a character attack on the man and his family.
She wasn't even in the public eye.
Yes, it's devoid of information. Yes, it's not in the public interest to know. Yes, it comes at a cost to the person talked about that is disproportional to the gain the audience has from the information. Yes, she wasn't in the public eye.
But is this definite proof of propaganda? No.
More likely it's just yet another outgrowth of what happens when news organizations are competing for attention. It's histrionic. But, well, there's human nature for you.
[edit] As noted by a comment - I'm only pointing out a flaw in the OPs logic. This really might be propaganda, but OPs "proof" simply isn't one.
That's how shitty the "elites" are, they will go after anyone and everyone in their mad scramble to protect their golden gooses.
I read the fact about the pole dancing stuff and thought "Oh.". So there.
Once again - I completely follow the train logic and it could be that way. But it isn't necessarily proof for a theory about propaganda or "the elites".
I put the term in quotes because it's more of a mindset they seem to have than an objective qualifier.
Indeed, it is getting bizarre seeing people outraged that some truth about people is reported. Ms Mills identifies herself as a pole dancer. Snowden made banal online comments. Snowden dropped out of high school. These are not smears but are just interesting facts. They don't diminish either of them an iota in my eyes, but do add colour. A lot of people here seem to think these are deeply embarrassing facts that should remain hidden.
I find this aspect and the fact that is obvious to most people, barbaric at best.
When the war logs leaked, I doubted that anyone would take the initial smears against Julian Assange seriously. I'm Swedish and the sexual misconduct allegations were a big conversation subject here.
After a while, I realised that though I wasn't impressed by the ad hominems, they really did work on the general public. Older relatives and friends who were not in tune with the particular issues of the leak were much more interested in stories about the people behind it. These stories require no expert knowledge; they're relatable. It's daunting for a layperson to try to judge who's right or wrong in issues like war or spying, but it's easy and familiar to judge people over the perceived wholesomeness of girls they're involved with. Thus, to my disappointment, these friends and relatives categorically dismissed anything about the war logs by referring to Assange's personal affairs.
Things like this are published to create negative associations; to cater to personal vanity (better-than-thou) and focus judgement on Snowden's character rather than the faceless institutions he ousted.
When Snowden bravely outed himself, the media was in a race to find as many details on him that they could. If they could find people saying that he saved kittens, they would report that. If they find people saying he dropped out of high school, they report that. If Ars Technica discovered that he posted there, of course they're going to capitalize on that and post summaries of the sorts of things he said.
It required no conspiracy or concerted attack. It happens for spree killers. It happens for "hackers". It happens for politicians. It happens for heroes.
I just don't buy the ad hominem/smear angle when the things reported thus far have been rather banal facts that thus far have gone uncontested.
Now if the NSA suddenly claimed that they found child pornography on his workstation, or mysterious women appeared claiming to have been raped by him, a serious consideration would be in order. That hasn't happened (yet, at least), and instead people are seemingly acting knowing and world-weary about absolutely standard media reporting.
In my view, neither the banality nor even the truth of the allegations are particularly important. The key reason I chose to file this as a ad hominem/smear is that it invites judgment of Snowden without pertaining to the contents of the leak or even the act of leaking.