Leaves the reader with a lot of questions. What new evidence came to light that discounted the charges? What "powerful organizations... want to do harm to WikiLeaks," if Hrafnsson's claim is true? Is there a connection?

Is straightforward news coverage of a smear good journalism? At least, the story does get a response to the charges from Assange's colleague, but this story reads like "he says (the prosecutor)" / "she says (Assange's colleague." Other than the praiseworthy attempt to get a response from Assange's side, there's no attempt to investigate whether / why the prosecutor might bring such a charge. In light of the obvious and well-publicized attacks on Assange by the U.S. as well as its allies, it is pretty irresponsible to run a story like this without further investigation.