You didn't. Assange found that it was difficult to be a real journalist. Instead of attempting to be responsible and do the investigative work required to figure out names that might be worth publishing, he threw up his hands and published them all
That's not investigative journalism. It's much closer to muckraking.
I know, you'd consider the likes of NYT/WaPo to be 'real journalists'.
The ones that had so cozy of a relationship with the Pentagon that they saw no problem in being government mouthpieces and getting the public to support a war in Iraq that killed 200k+ people on a made up pretense of WMDs. Same for Lybia, Syria etc.?
Because that's how you get the level of government access to be what you'd consider a 'real' journalist.
I am glad that you don't get to define who makes a 'real' journalist and who doesn't. Julian is not one of these[1] indeed.
> The ones that had so cozy of a relationship with the Pentagon that they saw no problem in being government mouthpieces and getting
I consider that journalistic malpractice. Like I said, investigative journalism is difficult. People, including the "real ones" sometimes do it badly. When they do, the good ones apologize and retract.
For what its worth, I don't actually think that you'd need particular government access to do a reasonable job of censoring the names of at risk agents in the documents wikileaks leaked. I'd go far enough to say that me, as a layperson, with practically no journalistic experience could do a better job than Assange did. In fact, I'm certain of that.
That's not investigative journalism. It's much closer to muckraking.