I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Surely if the Times received a completed story with detailed research and corroborating video evidence, it would writ

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Surely if the Times received a completed story with detailed research and corroborating video evidence, it would write some sort of story, but I don't see how this differs from the leaked cable content. The true power of journalism comes from what doesn't get reported. The NYT wrote a story on Assange that referred to his "dwindling supporters" and made no mention of the odd technicalities in the rape case, and presented him as being an egomaniac. All of these may be true (or false) but the article cited no references for any of the negative claims. Also, the leaks are the story. Assange is not the story, as much as tabloids would like him to be.