The dispute with The Guardian exploded last year after 251,000 un-redacted State Department cables were exposed online. The exposure happened because WikiLeaks gave The Guardian access to the files and a Guardian reporter, David Leigh, published the password in his book WikiLeaks; Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy. Leigh assumed WikiLeaks had changed the password in the time between when his book was published but it hadn't. A "heated blame fest" ensued.

While the media organizations may have their flaws, WikiLeaks itself isn't the easiest organization to work with either. In the current Stratfor leak project, Assange imposed a complicated embargo prohibiting the media partners from publishing stories on certain topics and geographic areas on certain days. As The Times former executive editor Bill Keller recalled in a lengthy New York Times piece, Assange came off as " arrogant, thin-skinned, conspiratorial and oddly credulous" when they worked together. Then there's the fact that in the past, WikiLeaks has imposed such extensives conditions on its partnerships that media companies have said it's not worth it. In December 2010, The Washington Post reported that WikiLeaks approached both CNN and The Wall Street Journal on a project but they both ended up refusing because WikiLeaks demanded they sign a confidentiality agreement stipulating that WikiLeaks gets $100,000 if either partner breaks the embargo.

In any case, it's clear that the media craves the scoops WikiLeaks delivers and WikiLeaks craves the soap box and story analysis the media delivers. While WikiLeaks claims it's writing off its institutional partnerships with companies like The Times and The Guardian, it seems clear individual reporters can still collaborate with Assange & Co.

This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire.