There was no question of the authenticity of the documents. The piece was completely unnecessary. Julian Assange himself is irrelevant to the stories that the N

There was no question of the authenticity of the documents. The piece was completely unnecessary. Julian Assange himself is irrelevant to the stories that the NY Times published, and readers did not need to know that the NY Times considers Assange paranoid in order to evaluate US military logs. If a NY Times reporter broke a big story, would the NY Times run it next to a smear piece about that reporter's personal habits?