... leading First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams has written a well-founded repudiation — WikiLeaks does no real reporting, adds no analysis or context and seemingly fails to consider the harm its “data dumps” of state secrets may cause others. [Source]
WikiLeaks absolutely reports what it is given and only after thoroughly checking the material.
WikiLeaks provides plenty of analysis and context via social media, articles, interviews, videos, etc., much of which was being done by Julian Assange before the US national security state intervened on behalf of itself.
WikiLeaks does more good than harm by far. All of the allegations that WikiLeaks has blood on its hands are leveled by those with blood on their hands that WikiLeaks exposed.
In order to be the "press" as used in the US Constitution, an entity is under no obligation to analyze, provide context, or consider how what it publishes may harm others. It simply needs to publish.
It does have to follow laws concerning copyright protection, liable, incitement, and such, but under no circumstances may any of those laws be used to block the press from disseminating information concerning the illegality of others.