I am an avid "The Economist" reader. I don’t always agree with the conclusions, but the analysis is very often spot on. Rarely do I find a real fuckup, but the article on Wikileaks is one of those rare cases. For most publications you will find that the comments section is full of irrationality and often bigotry. The Economist is an exception to this rule, so I urge you to read the hundreds of replies, which are better the the article itself. Here some examples:
Exceptionally for The Economist, this is a shabby article, with little reasoning in the reasoning and view presented.
I can’t believe I’ve read this article on the Economist.
This clumsy article makes little sense.
A shameful article, wobbly on fact, thin on content and misses the point.
"In any country the theft and publication of 250,000 secret government documents would deserve punishment." Sir, This as all very well, except your initial premise is demonstrably false. WikiLeaks has to date published a mere 1,193 of the leaked cables, and the vast majority of those first appeared in their partner newspapers.
At best, the Economist is very out of touch with its readership.
With this article, Economist failed to live up to its reputation.