I'm not sure many folks would think of him as a martyr. A lot of the previous good will about leaking important documents seems to have been washed away by Wikileak's crafting things to form their own narratives.
Having a bias and "crafting things to form their own narratives" are two very different things. Yes, Assange has an anti-HRC bias because of his beliefs (rightly or wrongly) of how she would act as president. Unfortunately, all reporting is biased. I would love it if WikiLeaks was a completely-unbiased news source but such a thing really doesn't exist. Publishing the Iraqi/Afghan war logs was an example of having an anti-war bias.
But all of the leaks were factual, no "crafting" to form a narrative involved. The DNC did undermine Bernie Sanders, she did say she had "private and public positions", and a whole host of other things. Just because they didn't publish what the RNC was doing doesn't make the leaks any less true or important.
Their own tweets about what they're going to release and their actual actions, their own characterization of the information, their choices not to release some information.
I also really don't think it is a difficult concept to understand that when choosing what to release and what you don't release you can greatly influence what is "true".
Let's say I was a military organization and I released some information that I killed 12 terrorists.... but I didn't say that I killed 200 civilians doing so. I could use your same argument "point out something I said that wasn't true"... but obviously I wasn't telling the whole story.
But all of the leaks were factual, no "crafting" to form a narrative involved. The DNC did undermine Bernie Sanders, she did say she had "private and public positions", and a whole host of other things. Just because they didn't publish what the RNC was doing doesn't make the leaks any less true or important.