I'd love to be able to claim the credit for the fact that in the past week, hundreds of diplomatic cables sent from the US Embassy in Canberra to the State Department in Washington (and numerous other addressees around the world) have been published on the WikiLeaks website.

(I can't link to them at the time of writing. You should be able to go to http://wikileaks.org/cablegate.html and then go to the 'browse by origin' box, click on C and then on 'Embassy Canberra'. But if you do that at the moment you get the cables from the Brussels Embassy. Hopefully the glitch will be sorted soon).

After all, they started appearing about a week after Media Watch first asked WikiLeaks why, despite its professed principles, stories based on WikiLeaks cables were still appearing in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age without the parallel publication of the cables themselves.

However, the Australian cables are only a small trickle compared with the torrent that WikiLeaks has suddenly published, originating from US diplomatic posts around the world. Media Watch might be influential, but not that influential. I'm inclined to believe that the publication of the Australian cables within hours of our item going to air on Monday night is a coincidence.

But something else of interest happened on that night.

The Media Watch item drew attention to a story by Philip Dorling, published in The Age and the SMH last May, about the Australian Government's secret attempts to weaken the provisions of an international convention banning cluster munitions. We asked why the US cables on which the story was based - cables that Dorling admitted came from WikiLeaks - had still not been published four months later, despite the desperate pleas of a lobby group, the Cluster Munitions Coalition.

We pointed out that WikiLeaks specifically claims on its website that "we don't hoard our information; we make the original documents available with our news stories. Readers can verify the truth of what we have reported themselves".

In an op-ed published by The Australian last December, Julian Assange specifically claimed that this principle was followed by the 'other media outlets' with which WikiLeaks worked. He called it 'scientific journalism':

Scientific journalism allows you to read a news story, then to click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you can judge for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately?

So why, we asked WikiLeaks and Fairfax, could no-one find the cables relating to Australia's attitude to cluster bombs?

Despite numerous emails to numerous addresses, and not a few phone calls, we could get no response from WikiLeaks.

The questions we'd sent to the editors of The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald were eventually responded to by reporter Philip Dorling. He put the onus for publication on WikiLeaks. It's worth quoting his response at length.

While other media outlets involved in the initial publication of stories based on the WikiLeaks US cables archive (The Guardian, New York Times et al) may have entered into specific, written agreements about the publication of cables in exchange for their access to the entire database of 250,000 plus documents, this was not the case in respect of myself and Fairfax in relation to the publication of the Australia related cables. Rather it was left to myself and Fairfax to publish stories with the expectation that WikiLeaks would in due course put Australia-related cables up on its website.

"In due course." And meanwhile, it appeared, it was not Fairfax Media's problem that its stories, though clearly based on cables that it had in its possession, had to be taken on trust by readers.

(In his response, Dorling also claimed that the Cluster Munitions Coalition had been trying to gain access to the cables 'exclusively'. This is nonsense. Media Watch has seen the emails: it's plain that the Coalition wanted the cables in any form that Dorling was prepared to release them - posted online for all to see, or, if Dorling insisted on maintaining confidentiality so that he could publish more stories later, then confidentially. My view is that the cables should have been posted for everyone to see).

This isn't the first time I'd raised this issue. I wrote about it on The Drum last December. On that occasion, SMH editor-in-chief Peter Fray had admitted that Fairfax was indeed hoarding the cables, so as not "to give access to our competitors in the local market".

I didn't accept in December, and I didn't accept last Monday, that Fairfax could duck responsibility in that way. Philip Dorling had acquired the Canberra cables (for no monetary payment) from WikiLeaks. It seemed to me that he and Fairfax had an obligation to live up to WikiLeaks's admirable principles, and to publish the cables - whether or not WikiLeaks did so too - in conjunction with his stories, or shortly afterwards.

And indeed, last December, Fairfax did publish most of the cables its stories had been based on up to that time. It looked very much as though pressure from me and a few others - like Alan Kohler - had brought this about.

But since then they hadn't published any cables at all. And that, Dorling seemed to be saying, was WikiLeaks' fault, not his.

So what else happened on Monday night? Well, within 15 minutes of the end of Media Watch, this tweet appeared on Twitter:

@wikileaks: Australian media watch: poor research - not our choice, the journo concerned, Phil Dorling had been in hospital for an extended period

Well, that was a bit rich. We knew perfectly well that Philip Dorling had been ill. That didn't seem to me to be a reason why The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald, which between them employ several hundred other journalists, could not have published the relevant cables - or made sure that WikiLeaks did so.

So I tweeted back, rather crossly:

@jonaholmesMW: @wikileaks So that stops you publishing a cable? Why? Bullshit.

That prompted a series of very revealing tweets:

@wikileaks: @jonaholmesMW we encourage newspapers basing stories on WikiLeaks to publish the cables. SMH is substandard in this regard. @jonaholmesMW: @wikileaks which is exactly what we said, so why criticise our research? One journo's illness is no excuse. @wikileaks: @jonaholmesMW The majority of our partners are contractually obliged to trigger our publication of cable source material @wikileaks: @jonaholmesMW SMH is not due to historical reasons and the personal difficulties faced by Dr Dorling @wikileaks: @jonaholmesMW Here is an example WikiLeaks contract for Tunusia (sic) http://24sur24.posterous.com/mou-contract-between-wikileaks-and-nawaat-tun @wikileaks: Our contracts help us publish the underlying cables. But the media organisation must tell us using our system. SMH hasn't.

A number of tweeps were following this exchange with some fascination. It seemed to many of them, as it did to me, that at the very least WikiLeaks was confirming that there was something dysfunctional about the WikiLeaks-Fairfax partnership.

Finally I tweeted:

@jonaholmesMW: all of which confirms our item. Fairfax must take responsibility and won't

Then came what I took to be an admission by WikiLeaks that it agreed with our argument:

@wikileaks: (video) excellent example of why cables must be published in full https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3305065.htm

Well as it happened, around that time, hundreds more cables from the US Embassy in Canberra were being posted on the WikiLeaks.org website, including at least 10 relating to the cluster munitions convention. (We'll post a link to them on the Media Watch website shortly).

But that, as I said, was a coincidence. And so far as the cluster bomb cables are concerned, they came about four months too late.

I sent a copy of my Twitter exchange with WikiLeaks to Philip Dorling yesterday and received this long and very reasonable response this morning:

Dear Mr Holmes Thanks for your email. You already have the response I gave Media Watch last week. However I’m happy to add some additional points. I was the sole Australian journalist to obtain access to the US diplomatic cables leaked to WikiLeaks. (My understanding is that although a number other journalists sought interviews with Julian Assange, no one else actually sought access to the material even though it was apparent from information in the public domain that it was in WikiLeaks possession.) I obtained access to the US cables as a freelancer and subsequently made an arrangement with The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald for publication of stories based on the material. This was all done in much haste. It was understood with WikiLeaks that publication should commence without delay. Unlike The Guardian and other papers we did not have months in which to prepare for publication – rather it was a matter of about 10 days. Since November last year, the cable databases provided by WikiLeaks have been in my sole custody. I have also remained the sole point of contact with WikiLeaks. This has certainly resulted in me, as an individual, being a bottleneck, and that’s a responsibility I’m happy to acknowledge. As in all parts of life, human frailty is a factor. However the argument that Fairfax has lots of other journalists quite fails to consider my particular position. At the same time it was always understood that WikiLeaks would in due course post all the cables on their website. This was the subject of exchanges between myself and WikiLeaks including direct discussion between Assange and myself in June. WikiLeaks decision to release all the Australia-related cables is part of their broader release of material and that is a matter for their judgment. I don’t think any criticism can be directed against WikiLeaks regards the timing of this. I note WikiLeaks expression of disappointment about the publication of cable texts by Fairfax. They are quite entitled to express their view. Peter Fray has clearly expressed Fairfax’s view – including in his introduction to Kristin Hraffnson which I was interested to read last night. For myself, I think that as far as newspapers and other media organisations are concerned these are matters of editorial judgment about which reasonable people can differ. As someone who is currently a defendant in legal action aimed at the forcing the disclosure of confidential sources and related information, I don’t take an absolutist position either way in regard to “scientific journalism”. Rather I think these matters need to be determined with careful editorial judgment on a case by case basis. This view might put me at odds with Julian Assange’s or your own purist view of “scientific journalism”. Unquestionably, however, WikiLeaks has made an enormous impact in terms of championing the cause of openness and transparency and I think that in the broadest sense the world can only be a better place for that. I’m sure all this will continue to be subject of debate which might hopefully eventually yield more light than heat. With regard to the specific request by the Cluster Munitions Coalition for access to the cables to further their lobbying campaign aimed at influencing the Federal Parliament’s consideration of implementation of the international convention on Cluster Munitions, I would add that this was a matter I dealt with myself. I didn’t consult with any one in Fairfax. That one’s just down to me. No doubt you will take the opportunity to continue your criticism of Fairfax. I can only suggest that you should not hold back in criticising me. After all as a newcomer to journalism this has been my modest “scoop” and I’m happy to take responsibility for it. Yours sincerely Philip Dorling

But in my view, the fact that Dorling has sole custody of the WikiLeaks cables, and the editors of The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald have not insisted on the publication of cables relevant to Dorling's news stories, regardless of what WikiLeaks was doing, is a dereliction of their editorial responsibility.

I stand by the judgment I made at the end of Monday's media Watch:

I reckon that it wasn't up to WikiLeaks, but to the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, to back up their story with the evidence. It's in the public interest - including that of future victims of these nasty weapons - for the cables to be posted. It's in Fairfax's commercial interest to keep them under wraps. Their editors, not Philip Dorling, bear the responsibility for the choice they've made.

Post script

I've now received this response from Peter Fray, editor-in-chief of The Sydney Morning Herald. (to see the attachment he mentions click here)

Dear Jonathan Thank you for patching me in on your note re Wikileaks to Phil Dorling . Please find attached my recent introduction to Kristin Hraffnson, a Wikileaks spokesman, which sets out some of my thinking about his organisation and its approach to the release of information. As for your exchange with Wikileaks, I would make the following comments: 1. The relationship between Fairfax and Wikileaks has been 'mediated' by Phil Dorling. He came to us as a freelancer, armed with the Wikileaks material, and has worked until recently in that capacity. 2. Fairfax has no contract with Wikileaks per se; we are not obligated to follow any other path or form of publication, and certainly not any path deemed as standard or otherwise by Wikileaks. 3. Instead, we have commercial and editorial arrangement with Phil Dorling, an upstanding journalist who I first employed at the Canberra Times. Phil has done nothing wrong; he is a first class investigative journalist. We back his judgement and standards. 4. The Wikileaks material Phil has sent to us has been through a thorough editing process, largely led by the senior editor of The Age, Mark Baker, one of the contry's most experienced and respected editors. 5. I repeat: It is up to us -- not Wikileaks -- to decide how this material is published. We do not ascribe to the hackers' mentality that all material should be published. We have a duty of care to people named in the Wiki material to ensure they are not placed in danger by the publication of the cables. We have a duty of care to our readers to ensure proper editing. 6. I thoroughly reject any suggestion that the approach by the SMH or The Age has been substandard. 7. Many WikiLeaks reports that have appeared in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age have been drawn from a range of cables, not just those from Phil Dorling. We have, like other publications, sourced the NYT, The Guardian etc. 8. WikiLeaks has just published all of the Australian-tagged cables. Jonathan, this is an interesting public debate. We have published the Wikileaks material in a different way than other organisations. How we have done so is a legitimate public issue and I welcome your contribution. Best, Peter

I agree with Peter that it is up to the SMH and The Age, not WikiLeaks, to decide how the material is published. And to my mind there was no reason why the cables relevant to the Cluster Munitions Convention should not have been published immediately – no one would have been 'placed in danger' by their publication, and they had no need for 'proper editing'.

Jonathan Holmes, the presenter of ABC TV's Media Watch, has been a journalist for 35 years.