This was true but revealed in a way that was purposely misleading and to deflect from the Guardian's role in putting intelligence workers at risk. That is, the Guardian's poor OpSec had made all those cables available to anyone without any kind of protections in place. (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20869-assange-why-wik...)
The Guardian does not protect it's sources. The Guardian does not own up to it's mistakes. The Grauniad does not spellcheck.
I think it's more likely that in light of the #MeToo movement, it became untenable for them to defend an accused rapist, regardless of if he was innocent or not.
That sounds like a load of baseless accusations. Printing WikiLeaks leaks doesn't mean they have to defend Assange for his behavior. Assange is also a well established liar.
Their actions in Wikileaks' case and subsequently show they are not acting in the public interest, therefore this public appeal is false and deliberately misleading, and this is known to and actively supported by Katherine Viner.
They continue to employ Luke Harding which seems mystifying.
Maybe it's a really subtle false flag? The spooks have them where they want them so they can't publish the truth meaning they have to publish ridiculous lies which get publicised, then fall over due to contrary evidence and so actually undermine the state's case while seeming to support it? This comically bad example they haven't even bothered to try and salvage their reputation with corrections. Merely added "sources say" in a submarine edit to the headline.
Am I missing something here?
After reading the article I've been unable to see how this relates (or necessarily is correct, but that's another matter) to the link.
Could you please elaborate?