I'm really confused, I'm not just trying to rile you up here, are you really sure that Greenwald has a idealized view of Wikileaks, the narrative of his article

I'm really confused, I'm not just trying to rile you up here, are you really sure that Greenwald has a idealized view of Wikileaks, the narrative of his article seems to find some motivations of Manning, and as he says, he has already come to his separate belief that the service that Wikileaks performs is positive and true to its aims. We could weasel-word that and say Wikileaks "seems generally true to its aims" or "seems trying to stay true to its aims", but don't we all generally assume bias in all parties in contemporary intellectual debate? What am I missing here? Is it that you think that Greenwald doesn't recognize or understand ingrained and universal bias? Is it that you think Wikileaks should simply not have any opinions and only relay the facts? I guess that might be an improvement in the sense that they don't impart an incomplete or biased narrative? Isn't that called marketing? Should activists not market? Only information-related activists? Which activists are not in the information business anyway? Is activism within the media inherently and broadly frustrating to you too? There's some piece of information missing I think that connects the dots of why humans at Wikileaks having opinions and marketing them is frustrating to you. ITN news from the U.K. used to have a policy of impassive presentation of the facts. I loved it. But not many people watch ITN news, in fact I think they've gone away or changed or something because it wasn't viable or something of the sort, I need to look that up.