It's honestly stuff like this that gives a modicum of merit to the often repeated sentiment that NYT and WaPo are corrupt organizations that are just propaganda for the toads living under a volcano plotting out every passing moment (or whatever, IDK).<p>I remember a few years back, when NYT was really suffering a huge loss in readership, they had this mega panel to try and figure out why the paper was failing. At no point did their own editorial choices figure into the picture. (I think they decided the solution they needed was these sort of digital hybrid articles that have slick graphics, or something along these lines.)<p>In the big picture, I think these traditional news outlets <i>do</i> good, important work. However, they've really failed at times spectacularly in ways that have just given fodder to less reputable outlets, which people do listen to, and thus harmed even the notion of truth itself?<p>Examples would be how Iraq was covered, when the NYT had evidence similar to what Snowden leaked like 10 years later, but chose not to publish because the WH said they'd have a lot of death on their hands and stuff. Also, I think a lot of people feel that they pushed way too hard for a Clinton coronation, instead of really being objective and reporting on the phenomenon that was Bernie.<p>I don't bring up Bernie because I'm a Bernie Bro btw, I'm just saying that he was usually editorialized as a nuisance, perineal loser, who was a bad politician, when in the meanwhile his foil (trump) was seeing a similar populist rise that was met with similar befuddlement. The truth is, that Bernie and Trump were huge misses by media outlets and in many ways, these institutions couldn't see past their own certainty of how the world works.<p>So, when I read that no one is going to stand up for Assange, I just sort of shake my head and think that they really haven't learned a thing. They've missed opportunities to break huge stories, while at the same time have done very, very good reporting in the things that they excel at (I.e. Trump taxes, Panama papers, etc...) The problem is in an unfair fight, where one side isn't burdened by the truth, you can't even slip an inch. You have to follow the truth, wherever the story may take you, and a lot of these editors in my opinion have been failures for not taking this seriously.<p>It gives a semblance of credibility to the finger wagging from laughing stock alternative outlets, because sometimes (very rarely) they do have a point.