It's worth stating again that wikileaks did not simply do as you say, and release, or if you prefer, publish the documents sourced from Manning without editoria

It's worth stating again that wikileaks did not simply do as you say, and release, or if you prefer, publish the documents sourced from Manning without editorial constraint, at least until the cables were themselves public. The Iraq logs they certainly did. With the cables however Wikileaks published cables synchronously with their, to use their term, publishing partners. These partners were The Guardian, The New York Times, Der Speigel, Le Monde and El Pais. Initially Wikileaks only published cables that conformed with editing and redaction processes performed by The Guardian. After the insurance pass phrase was published in a confusion by someone connected to The Guardian and the cable file was compromised, Wikileaks published them all. This act received much criticism, but is far removed from an implication of unconsidered mass release. [1] As to The New York Times spearheading anything, this is something of an article of faith. The Guardian has arranged this with the NYT to dissuade the UK government from a course of action that could result in a complete halt in reporting based on this leak. There is no first amendment protection in the UK. Strictly speaking, this protection is already provided by the relationship with the Washington Post. But the agreement with the NYT is designed to rebut the proposed intention of the UK government by deliberate journalistic revolt in symbolic union with the paragon of first amendment defence. Which is best exemplified by the NYT. A strategic expression of journalistic power. The NYT can certainly be admired for its principles in joining in that defence, as it did in defence of Fox reporter James Rosen. Spearheading? Well we shall see. [1]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cabl...