This is an opinion piece, plain & simple. It touches on an important issue and includes direct quotes from relevant sources. But throughout it inserts an editorial opinion about what were “good” or “bad” answers. They correctly don't want our Executive Branch deciding who has to follow the law based on whether or not a person is a journalist, but ALSO don't like the arm-twisting of the NYT reporter who unquestionably IS a journalist. So the article is a bit of a red herring: it serves only to justify the article's own opinion of the correct way to treat Assange. I think I can say that's outside the normal definition of “journalism.” Free speech, sure, not libelous etc. Agree or disagree, no problemo. But entirely informed by preconception, the very definition of “bias.”

Well written but where is Yang in this

Detailed article revealing how each of the 2020 presidential candidates, including one republican, would deal with the Assange case if elected. No real surprises, but lots more detail into how some actually think about Assange, whistle blowing, what constitutes journalism and the use of the espionage act. Surprisingly Joe Walsh a GOP candidate for president gave one of the best answers as regards protections for freedom of the press as the lens with which to view the Assange case.

The article sources a NYT survey of POTUS candidates and their responses to a specific question. The results are interesting