I disagree strongly with you. The NYT (as an example) has entire pages dedicated on their website for both the war logs and and diplomatic cables. Even several days ago their front page (print) story was from the leaks. The media is not dropping the ball on this, it's just that alternative media talking heads desperately want them to drop the ball and so just keep saying that they have.
Like it or not, Julian is the face of Wikileaks and his eccentricities and the intrigue surrounding him is part of the story. A compelling part. One that gets more people reading about this than otherwise would have. Reporting isn't just about telling facts no matter how unbiased a reporter or news establishment might be. This is precisely why Wikileaks releases raw data to their media partners for analysis under an embargo in the first place; analysis which comes with some bias.
Would you consider it good reporting if the media were to never address the rape allegations when interviewing Assange? Even if they're fabricated?
> In fact, many media outlets have gone so far as to condemn the Wikileaks organization or to dismiss them as "not containing anything we didn't already know".
Which media outlets are those? Suggesting that outside of the context of an Op-Ed would be pretty unethical, but I haven't see that and I haven't read it anywhere.