Last week, the Westminster Magistrates' Court in London issued the formal extradition order for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange from Great Britain to the USA - the 50-year-old faces up to 175 years in prison if convicted.
This was reported in many media and commented on in some.
However, the news did not take up much space in the reporting.
What does that say about the media itself?
The "Guardian", which was even a partner medium of Assange at the beginning of the Wikileaks revelations, has now demanded his release after a period of complete aversion.
Former editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger said Julian Assange "did what any proud journalist would do".
The organization Reporters Without Borders demanded his release.
"We are calling on the Home Secretary to act in accordance with Britain's commitment to defending press freedom and refuse extradition," said the organisation's London representative, Rebecca Vincent.
“Assange is just the beginning”
Assange's lawyer Jennifer Robinson commented with dismay in the Berliner Zeitung that, not only in those media that were benefiting from Wikileaks at the time of the disclosures, so few now felt called to speak up for him: "I can't understand , why many media do not realize that it is about them and that Assange is just the beginning.” Society has become accustomed to the creeping restrictions on press freedom in western democracies – a fatal mistake.
Reporting on wars in particular shows that there is "a lot of hypocrisy" in the West with regard to freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
The freedom of journalists is very limited - and the fate of Assange should make the press aware,
The extradition order has gone to British Home Secretary Priti Patel for a final decision.
Assange's lawyers have four weeks to present grounds for objection.
The US government alleges that Assange, along with whistleblower Chelsea Manning, stole and released classified footage from US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, thereby endangering the lives of US whistleblowers.
Evidence of an actual threat has not become known.
Among other things, Wikileaks had published documents from the US Army that showed how prisoners were to be treated in Guantánamo, which in part violated the Geneva Convention and international law.
Above all, however, the platform published secret footage of the US armed forces, which, according to Wikileaks, proves the killing of innocent people by American armed forces.
A video recorded on July 12, 2007 and released in 2010 that caused a worldwide stir showed American soldiers firing on a group of men from an Apache helicopter in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad.
Among others, Reuters journalists Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen were killed.
The US Army later explained that the crew perceived the media representatives as part of a group of insurgents.
The "Katapult Magazin" commented on the actions against Assange last week with a diagram: It showed the head of former US President George W. Bush and that of Julian Assange.
In "Years of imprisonment for war crimes under his command" next to Bush is "0".
"For the investigation of these war crimes" next to Assange: "175".
The German Journalists Association said Assange deserves "a medal and not a life sentence".
The importance of uncovering war crimes was only recently shown in the Ukrainian Bucha.
"It is not to be expected," said Federal Chairman Frank Überall, "that Julian Assange expects a fair trial in the USA, at the end of which there may also be an acquittal." But when will the media interest return?
When everything is too late?