> traditional journalism is pretty far away from what Wikileaks has done.
What you're describing is exactly what investigative journalists do all the time: they encourage sources to leak classified information, which they then publish.
> If you don't agree about classifying that as espionage, what is espionage to you?
Espionage is when a government uses covert means to obtain information on a foreign government for its own gain. When an independent organization obtains and publishes government secrets that it deems to be in the public interest, that's normally called "journalism."
> they encourage sources to leak classified information, which they then publish
Where's the line between "encouraging a source", and trying to crack a salted password hash on their behalf so they can say "Here's the password, use this to get into this classified system"?
That's not what he's accused of doing. The password would not have given Manning access to additional information - just a way to cover her tracks. Whether Assange even tried to crack the password is just speculation, though.
> Assange is quoted saying to Manning that he was "still trying, had had no luck yet, trying different tools".
Which is evidence that he probably wasn't trying at all (and was lying to Manning) because any moderately-competent teenager with a computer can tell you that the only tool you need to use is johntheripper.
What you're describing is exactly what investigative journalists do all the time: they encourage sources to leak classified information, which they then publish.
> If you don't agree about classifying that as espionage, what is espionage to you?
Espionage is when a government uses covert means to obtain information on a foreign government for its own gain. When an independent organization obtains and publishes government secrets that it deems to be in the public interest, that's normally called "journalism."