Wasn't it actually the Guardian that published in a book the password to a circulating archive of secret information? It was the Diplomatic Cables if I'm not mistaken.

Talking about responsible disclosure.

Also the Reality Winner incident

> She was detained even before The Intercept published the article that was based upon the leaks.

It also is highly selective of the documents it publishes - his policy of “radical transparency” didn’t survive the TV deal he signed with Russian state media, and proof that he suppressed whistleblowers evidence of Russian involvement in the Syrian civil war was met with outright retaliatory threats against those who deigned to report on it.

This. I thought Wikileaks was an important endeavor and Julian Assange should be protected right up until he released "Collateral Murder." All he had to do was release the audio and video undoctored, it was damning enough in the raw. But the moment he decided to jazz it up with sound effects and music he lost all integrity. Ever since then Julian Assange's Wikileaks has only released "curated" information that he felt fits his narrative. The original Wikileaks was nothing like that, it was just that a wiki of leaks. I still think the original Wikileaks has a place in this world, but Julian Assange's Wikileaks is horseshit and I don't care if he gets arrested.

> Ever since then Julian Assange's Wikileaks has only released "curated" information that he felt fits his narrative.

Sounds to me like essentially every news organization ever.

> Sounds to me like essentially every news organization ever.

There is a thing called journalistic integrity, it does exist and is practiced. It is also something Assange completely lacks.

> There is a thing called journalistic integrity, it does exist and is practiced.

Trust in the media is at an all time low, mainly because many (not all) "journalists" threw integrity out the window in favor of activism.