Death of Journalism

The latest round of WikiLeaks (click here for cliffs notes version) is challenging the fortitude of the first amendment of our Constitution.
There is a lot going on here so let me break it down as I see it:

Instead of writing opinions based on anonymous sources WikiLeaks released thousands of embarrassing documents and now the politicians want to smite WikiLeaks founder.

Now we can dissect that statement. The first part about writing opinions based on anonymous sources is a key part of understanding journalism today. Journalist have relationships with different politicians and their staff. News stories are usually based on public or confidential statements by these people the journalist have relationships with. This means that the journalist isn't the only one controlling what information is getting out there, it is also being controlled to some degree by the subjects of the reporting. Clever journalist can read into what they're told and investigate further to find information. Clever politicians and staff can trick journalist into following false leads and continuing bogus narratives.
WikiLeaks is peeling back the facade and revealing what no one should be surprised is going on. By releasing private communications we only see the specifics of who said and did what. Are we really surprised that diplomats talk about other diplomats behind their backs? Are we surprised our government is staging attacks in counties we're not at war with? Are we surprised they are covering it up?
We shouldn't be. Shame on us if we were. These kind of things have continually been reported all along. But as long as the sources were anonymous, it was deniable. We could pretend we don't believe the source. We could marginalize the reporting.
WikiLeaks can not be sidelined in the same way because they offer no opinions only exposure of things meant to be secret.
Now to the bit about 'embarrassing documents'. I use this wording for a specific reason. I do not believe for one second that the real players are surprised by any of this. Many egos may be bruised but these players would have to be infantile and delusional to believe that diplomats talk the same to their face as they do behind their back.
Prime example is the 'revalations' about Saudi princes funding terrorism while still considered an ally. This isn't new. But these leaks highlight that Saudi Arabia is being held to a different standard than other countries in the region and may force us to ask why. Again it's based on relationships. This time it's the relationships with our corporations and our politicians. They don't dare go after the 'bad' princes at the cost of the 'good' princes.
Now about the 'smiting' part
I find it funny that many of the people deny global warming suddenly turn against the publishers of 'climategate'. Again I'm not surprised. From their sinister interpretation of those benign documents it is obvious that they cherry pick information. I find it funny that people who claim to be against war are now saying WikiLeaks did something wrong by shining light on how ugly war is. And I find it scary that people are throwing around phrases like 'enemy combatant' as a designation for this news site.
An enemy combatant is a bullshit designation of a human being that strips them of any humanity. An enemy combatant doesn't have the same rights as a foreign soldier or even a criminal.
The truth is for at least my life time government has increasingly become more blatantly abusive. As we become more able to stomach the abuse administrations, parliaments, congress, corporations, and international bodies of all sorts become slightly less worried about appearances.
I see the leaks of these documents as a net gain for humanity because it is enough to be shocking. I hope it's shocking enough to make the world see the truth and to stop our government from saying with it's actions "Oh you have a freedom of speech, but if you practice it too radically you will have all your rights revoked, including the one that gives you a fair hearing as to whether or not you did indeed practice it too radically."

(run on sentences are another sign of increasingly blatant abuses of power)