That something is factually accurate does not mean it is not published with the purpose of manipulating political outcomes.

Not that everything Assange has done is non-editorialized relay of fact.

> If he was publishing fake news, I could understand Ecuador.

Ecuador is merely fulfilling it's obligation under international law; the primary offended party is the UK, here, who is the party that has objected that Ecuador permitting Assange’s political activities directed at the UK and other states violates Ecuador's obligations under international law.

Having diplomatic facilities on the territory of another country is not a right, it is a privileged extended under terms (many of which are standardized in international law.)

>> the primary offended party is the UK

Sorry, I disagree. Primary offended party here is Assange - a victim of powers that be trying to contain him. UK is the primary bully here.

There are legitimate reasons for countries to keep secrets, just as there are legitimate reasons for individuals to keep secrets.

And that’s without one-sided reporting (“Her emails!” “If that’s important, what about his phone?”) or outright falsehoods (I am glad to say I don’t think Assange has done that outside of misrepresenting himself).