Cablegate gift keeps on giving

There is also appreciation for some of the piquancy of the diplomatic language ("Americans in the foreign service are wittier than I had anticipated"), and a feeling that the US may be more on top of its game than respondents had thought. So for some the documents in fact improve their perception of the US.

To many, the importance of the cables is not so much what they contain but the theatre in the way that governments across the world have reacted to them. "Their actual content is so-so ... That's what's good about WikiLeaks cables ... not the cable ... rather those who react ... and it's created public debate and is making the Christmas season so fun."

One of those reacting is Julia Gillard, and it is ironic that on an issue that ought to run to some extent in Labor's direction, she has miscalled it so badly. Ninety-four per cent of Greens and 73 per cent of Labor voters disapprove of her critical pronouncements on Assange and the legality of his behaviour. She does best with Liberal and Nationals voters, where a smaller 65 per cent disapprove.

So how strong is WikiLeaks' position in public esteem? Well it has some weaknesses. While respondents may not approve of Gillard on Assange, that doesn't mean they are particularly easy with him themselves.

We analysed qualitative responses on what respondents thought of Assange using Leximancer software. While information is the central theme, indicating that what he does is more important than who he is, there are two strongly opposed views of his character. Those who approve of WikiLeaks see him as courageous and brave; those who disapprove call him narcissistic, vain and egotistical, and tend to see WikiLeaks as an exercise in self-promotion.

Assange is potentially a bit of a bad Santa.

At the moment, the dominant view of him is that he is courageous , but if WikiLeaks were to release damaging information, or Assange's personality became dominant, things could change.

While Assange, in common with many of our respondents, appears to think governments should have no secrets, that was not a commonly held view among our respondents when it comes to matters affecting their security.

Although only 51 per cent agreed "governments ought to have secrets from their citizens", for matters of security 69 per cent approved of governments keeping documents secret; for military documents it was 62 per cent.

If identifiable private individuals were hurt by a WikiLeaks operation, it could have an effect on their public standing, particularly as, where documents are stolen, or leaked, respondents saw the publisher having the largest responsibility rather than those responsible for the lax security, or the leaker.

Although whether WikiLeaks is the publisher is in some ways moot, with most respondents (90 per cent) accessing the WikiLeaks material from the mainstream media; for some respondents this raises issues of how novel and independent WikiLeaks is.

They see Assange as, in a sense, a contracted employee, providing the newspapers with information using new media, but not in any substantial sense representing new media or in reality being independent himself.

It is clear that cablegate raises issues of government and individual privacy and confidentiality that may in the long run be viewed differently from what is the case at present.

There is widespread distrust and disdain for government, so the mood is against it having any secrets, yet respondents in general acknowledge that some level of secrecy is unavoidable in specific areas.

The irony for WikiLeaks is that while its operation continues as a bit of Christmas drama it will probably retain its favourable status, but should it cause any serious damage, then things will change.