I get the whole 'expose the stuff people need to know' angle, although to me it doesn't seem to be about that . Why? Because:
1 - We don't need to know every itty bit of detail, but we do need to know about duplicity, corruption, deception, dishonesty et al.
2 - So much of what it done seems to be driven by a vendetta rather than truly being what is in the public good
3 - There is no public good in so many of the things released, such as diplomatic chatter, he said/she said - unless of course that's evidence of things in point 1 above
4 - If it were truly about public good, there would be some editorial effort made, and details that could endanger lives etc would be redacted.
A reporter who stumbled upon this information would check his or her sources, make a judgement call on the value of items, and ensure that the story got told without prejudice to the saftey and well being of others. This is what, IMO, Wikileaks needs to do to be seen as a serious service for the public good rather than a mischief maker.