The New York Times received its dump of diplomatic documents from the Guardian, not Wikileaks. This isn’t surprising given that the Times’ editor went out of his way to call Wikileaks irresponsible, ran an unflattering profile of Julian Assange alongside the last Wikileaks story, and wouldn’t even link from their Iraq Wikileaks story to the Wikileaks site.
I can’t think of another instance of a newspaper bashing a source while at the same time publishing a major story based on that source’s revelations. The opposite is usually true, since most media outlets grant anonymity to sources in return for even the most trivial revelations, so it’s impossible for their readers to even begin to judge the source’s motives.
I’m sure the Times will chalk this one up to Julian Assange’s eccentricity, but I have to believe that they’ve damaged themselves in the eyes of other potential sources. Having to rely on the charity of a British newspaper to get one of the most important stories of the year is a pretty low place for a paper that fancies itself the leading American newspaper.