Seems like a meaningless difference to me. You're saying that if Wikileaks had carefully summarized each document instead of releasing the actual documents then it would be journalism?

Wikileaks presented information, just because that information wasn't in a form that you are comfortable and familiar with doesn't make it not journalism.

No one had ever seen a journalist who published exclusively online until a few years ago and many people claimed that wasn't "journalism". Now bloggers are pretty well-recognized.

The volume of information is so large today that a new form of journalism is required. Wikileaks has provided that, or at least led the charge to provide it.

Wikileaks acted as a clearinghouse for raw information. Then others read it, interpreted it and wrote about it. I don't see the problem.

Sorry, you're wrong. Getting information to the public is journalism. It's usually better to go beyond raw information to do so, but making the information itself more accessible than it was before (because it was secret, for instance) is very valuable. I spent a couple of years doing that in a newsroom.

> journalists don't capture and disseminate private conversations

Perhaps you have heard of the terms "public service" and "public sector"? Government documents are not private conversations and I am genuinely appalled you believe yourself entitled to speak on only those matters your government deems fit for public discourse.

> Government documents are not private conversations.

huh? if they weren't private, then why were they newsworthy?