The morality of Wikileaks?

I feel way behind my time here... I just now discovered Wikileaks through browsing TED and stumbling upon Julian Assange's interview - http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/julian_assange_why_the_world_needs_wikileaks.html.
I take my PhD project as a reason for being so desperately ill informed. And I make a note here that while being an idiot may be a reason for an action, or state of mind as in this case, it's definitely not an excuse.
In any case, it's all new just now, so I have not yet formed an opinion, but I wonder the morality of the project?
My initial reaction is to praise their efforts, but I wonder the implications. It's obvious to say that the media has a huge effect on people, consequently, it's doubtful that the project simply releases material as it comes. Even with best intentions there must be a priority list, and this in itself has the potential to send a message rather than simply reveal the 'truth'/facts objectively.
...........
After some discussion, it seems that the situation runs thus:
1. A secret is always someones private property.
2. Every individual will be against publicity of their personal secret.
3. and, yet, if the secret is big enough we are all for publicity of other peoples secrets... hmm... seems like a dirty motive hiding behind under the guise of higher order morality - freedom of speech and public knowledge.

Although it must be acknowledged, that theoretically it can be argued that a democracy cannot by its tenets have 'secrets' and must be transparent. What is truth and what are facts? So many times a sentence taken out of context can be grossly misinterpreted, a partial image illustrate provide a completely erroneous representation of a situation. Is it possible that it may be unethical to reveal all secrets simply because it is impossible to provide their context and as a result they are in themselves lies.

Life is rarely black and white, there is no truth or fact, just a context or point of view. The history of mankind has demonstrated countless times just how easily the public is manipulated.
Back to the general point however, whether the publication of 'secrets' or rather material which an organization spends effort to conceal from the public (?) is ethical. Gosh, personally, I feel like I am opting out from taking a side because I can think of situations whereby it seems absolutely imperative for a fact to be made public, and efforts to conceal it are a crime. Yet, of course as mentioned above it is private property and public knowledge is a violation of human rights.

Information is power, and there is no way of objectively representing it and letting it loose to the general public whose levels of readiness to accept the information and act reasonably are varied if at all in existence. Consequently it must be controlled and whose to say that those that control it will not manipulate it to their own secret benefit.
Hahaha, now I sound as thought I have my own conspiracy theory... :) But it's just all too complicated.... I guess my final view of the matter is this: every action must have a goal or aim to which it strives otherwise it is not reasonable. Possessing information and control over its dissemination is a way of achieving an aim, not recongnising this is foolish and I doubt wikileaks are guilty of such ignorance.