On the second anniversary of Julian Assange's exile, we should acknowledge the enormous impact he has had on state-held information and on questions of publication and the public interest, writes Paola Totaro.

Say what you like about him - and let's face it, bagging Julian Assange has become a national sport - but the man has guts.

He showed great courage four years ago when WikiLeaks released the avalanche of material on the Iraq War taken by the whistleblower, Chelsea (previously Bradley) Manning - and it's a brave man who would countenance a life spent in exile for a principle.

Before the howls of protest begin, nobody would argue that Assange's decision to remain in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London is driven solely by altruism: of course he's also there to save his own bacon.

However, on the second anniversary of his numbing, self-imposed exile, it would be correct also to acknowledge the enormous impact Assange has had - and continues to have - on the world of journalism, on state-held information, on the role of modern whistleblowers and most importantly, on questions of publication and the test of public interest.

Instead, it seems to have become de rigueur to use the personal - Assange's mercurial character, egotism, burning of friendships - as a vehicle to dismiss his work or write off the revolutionary effects of WikiLeaks, the Iraq files and other revelations.

The former Labor foreign minister, Bob Carr, candidly admitted this impulse in his recent memoirs, confessing he wasn't sure of the veracity of his public statement in 2012 that Assange had received more consular time than any other Australian but had made the claim to "needle" his "self righteousness".

For similar reasons, Assange seems always to be hammered with the same hostile question - as occurred at his press conference call in London this week - demanding to know why a spear carrier for transparency refuses to face questions from Swedish prosecutors.

This disingenuously ignores Assange's answers, repeated ad nauseum by his lawyers over the years that he has always been available to talk to Swedish officials at any time. He offered himself for questioning in the UK four years ago, when the sexual misconduct claims first came to light, and again after he sought asylum. Meanwhile, Ecuador has invited Sweden to send its investigators at any time should they wish to resolve the stand-off and question him in the Embassy.

It is Sweden alone that has refused to do this while Assange remains on British soil.

It is a little known fact that the British extradition law under which Assange was ordered to Sweden was recently amended: the claims that originally secured his extradition order to Sweden would no longer be enough and a charge would be necessary.

Just how Assange will be viewed by history is of course dependent on who writes that history.

Andrew Fowler, author of the biography "The Most Dangerous Man in the World" believes he will be seen as a significant figure in the modern battle for freedom of information. He told The Drum:

Chelsea Manning's revelations could not have been made without WikiLeaks. And Edward Snowden has pointed to the significance of WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks has also exposed the failings of journalism - and journalists - who have been only too prepared to toe the line instead of exposing government wrongdoing.

There's little doubt that since Assange entered the fray, the media's interaction with whistleblowers has changed irrevocably. Manning turned to Wikileaks pretty much because the Washington Post and the New York Times - the newspapers he turned to first - refused to do so.

And yet this month, The New York Times new executive editor, Dean Baquet, spoke out about how these unprecedented exchanges of secret, state-held information have fundamentally changed the business of investigative journalism: "I am much, much more skeptical of the government's entreaties not to publish today than I was ever before" he said.

He also admitted just how "painful" it was for the paper to miss out on the Snowden leaks - and what would earn the Washington Post and Guardian a joint Pulitzer Prize - not to mention "getting beat by your biggest overseas competitor and your biggest national competitor".

Today, several major news organisations the world over, including The Guardian, have established encrypted, anonymous "drop" sites for whistleblowers to hand over information while specialised analysis of metadata in leaked caches of documents is a raison d'etre for the new, $US250 million independent media venture launched by eBay founder, Pierre Imidyar and led by Snowden leak journalists, Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras.

Jen Robinson, the London-based Australian Human Rights lawyer who has been both a friend and legal adviser to Assange, believes there has been a perceptible change in public understanding about Assange's legacy and there is now greater acceptance of the very real reasons behind his resolute decision to remain in the embassy. She told The Drum:

Both Julian and WikiLeaks have had a material, a large impact not only on the media but also in inspiring other whistleblowers to come forward. Chelsea Manning has been a stated inspiration as has Julian on Edward Snowden and the NSA revelations. The "right to know" has become a term of common parlance. WikiLeaks and what followed has meant that people are talking about it. There is a sense that we have a right to know what governments know. I don't think it would have happened without WikiLeaks. People do forget.

Imprisoned in the US, living in forced exile in Russia or holed up in a small embassy in London, Manning, Snowden and Julian Assange are polarising figures. However, all three gave up their lives and their liberty in the passionate pursuit and a heartfelt belief in freedom of information.

For this alone, they deserve respect.

Paola Totaro is an Australian journalist, writer and correspondent specialising in European affairs, politics, social policy and the arts. She is president of the Foreign Press Association in London. View her full profile here.