He's compiling a list of existing information that, as per his assertion, every media outlet seems to ignore which therefore serves to misinform the readership.
The author isn't attempting to add anything new, he's merely trying to reincorporate the facts back into a narrative that has strayed from the appropriate journalistic path.
Here's an exercise: try to find an actual fact in that blog post and then look to see whether it was in fact not covered in the stories about Assange. For example, “he wasn't fleeing rape charges” is true only to the extent that journalists said “charges” without explaining that it was an arrest warrant which could lead to those charges — that was heavily covered at the time and for the subsequent years in which it ended up, among other things, being litigated to the U.K. Supreme Court[1], all of which got a ton of publicity for years.
Again, I'm not saying anything about the actual merits of the case or the conduct of any of the parties involved, only that I don't think a good discussion will come out of an inflamatory blog post by someone who lacks particular legal expertise, knowledge about the case, and seems to be using it as grist for preexisting grievances about “corporate media”.
The fact that he illustrated is: how the media keeps ignoring salient points about the case. They consistently get it wrong. That consistency is not a mistake, it's by design.
I feel like that phrase gets bounded about all the time when people don't see their own narrative parroted back to them. Same with the following part of the sentence.
The author isn't attempting to add anything new, he's merely trying to reincorporate the facts back into a narrative that has strayed from the appropriate journalistic path.
The facts presented plainly is the contribution.