> It has a well-known and respected editorial process that can weigh the consequences of a leak versus the potential value to the public.
It is neither well known nor respected. The process is not public and there is a great deal of self-censorship that has nothing to do with public safety. There were examples of this even in the publication of the Wikileaks cables.
The New York Times and other media organizations have an independent public editor whose job is to examine and explain how the paper has handled a particular issue and to provide criticism if they feel it is appropriate. They also publish letters to the editor and op-eds by people who disagree.
Again, I'm not saying that the New York Times is perfect, but its a lot better than Wikileaks.
Those are weak checks and balances and are essentially ineffective for those most important problem: Stories which are never reported.
There are serious systemic faults that the NYT cannot solve. For example,
1. Corporate influence
2. Government influence
3. NYT management self-interest
4. NYT institution self-interest.
I'm not saying Wikileaks is perfect, but it certainly plugs those holes.
Finally, you needn't choose between NYT and Wikileaks, both can co-exist. But the world certainly could use more Wikileaks-like organizations than NYT-like ones.
It is neither well known nor respected. The process is not public and there is a great deal of self-censorship that has nothing to do with public safety. There were examples of this even in the publication of the Wikileaks cables.