I just fundamentally disagree with your characterization of "hit piece" here. The personality and behavior of a source is very relevant information, especially when they're vouching for the authenticity of leaked documents. Maybe his behavior was a reasonable reaction to legitimate fears, but that's a judgment call that readers of the NYT should be able to make for themselves - reporters should not be in the business of strategically hiding information to ensure readers reach the right conclusions.
There was no question of the authenticity of the documents. The piece was completely unnecessary. Julian Assange himself is irrelevant to the stories that the NY Times published, and readers did not need to know that the NY Times considers Assange paranoid in order to evaluate US military logs. If a NY Times reporter broke a big story, would the NY Times run it next to a smear piece about that reporter's personal habits?
