Red herring: something, esp. a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting : the book is fast-paced, exciting, and full of red herrings. [ORIGIN: so named from the practice of using the scent of red herring in training hounds.]
Not sure whether this is one of the above or not, but, some individuals are, or seem to be, getting their noses out of joint regarding comparisons between Daniel Ellsberg and Julian Assange - i.e. is Assange the new Ellsberg?
I am assuming, at best, that some simply don't appear to like that Assange is receiving publicity, though interviews and press conferences I've seen with him haven't left me with an impression he has the poparotsy craving celebrity disorder (PCCD in DSM-5). However like all disorders, detailed in DSM-5, only a skilled therapist can really pronounce on whether the person has the illness or not and usually only after years of analysis.
To me the comparison is apples and oranges or, better yet, apples & bananas.
In the Ellsberg case, he was the primary source of the so-called Pentagon Papers and the NYT was the media intermediary with the citizen being the ultimate receiver of the information. Both the primary source and the NYT played a significant role in providing information to the ordinary citizen. Ellsberg because he risked his personal freedom and maybe even safety. The Times because they risked political retaliation, long expensive legal battles and potential damage to a century old reputation.
In the case of Julian Assange it seems to me he has assumed some of the risks of both Ellsberg (the primary source for leaked material) and the NYT (the intermediary between the primary source and the ultimate receiver of information). In effect he and his organization have assumed an unique role absorbing risk from both the provider of information and the the usual public source of mass distribution of said information.
Maybe the time of Three Days of the Condor, where a single individual could deliver a bombshell story to an "old line" reputable newspaper or media outlet and be reasonably convinced the story would see the light of day, have passed. To me this certainly seems to be the case given large amounts of computer data that can now be the primary source of any leak. Also, the nature of the corporate media has, I think, changed dramatically since the days of The Pentagon Papers, whether it's fair or not I'm more cautious and skeptical about anyone source for information depending on: the specific outlet, where it's based, whether it's private or public etc. etc. . Thus an organization like Wikileaks can serve as a conduit to a variety of media outlets and independent analysis groups globally which helps ease my caution and skepticism regarding the assessment of the leaked information.
So comparing Ellsberg and Assange seems to me to be an "apples and banana" situation, both provide key and necessary elements just in different forms and focusing on the distinct shapes of either source seems a Red Herring.