No, it's the "just a blogger" thing - if you only publish on the internet and not in print then your journalistic credentials will always be slightly suspect.
(source: I ran a newspaper, and while 90% of our readers read our stories on our website or FB page, according to our market research the fact that we printed actual paper gave us way more credibility with our audience than competitors who just published on the internet)
They would never publish classified material without clearing it first with the UK government. And at minimum carefully redacting information that would put people in harm's way.
What odds might be put on them actual being uncivilised boors who'll publish anything that gets eyeballs?
More likely they wouldn't publish raw classified information because it is dry and boring.
It's not true that you have to limit harm to the government's taste in order to be considered a journalist, and it's not true that Assange did not try to limit harm either.
> Those sort of subtleties are important when you're going to be arguing in front of a judge.
Not in front of this judge. If there's one thing the case against Assange hasn't been, it's subtle!
Those sort of subtleties are important when you're going to be arguing in front of a judge.