the public reaction to WikiLeaks

I've just read in The Guardian that six out of ten citizens of the USA think that WikiLeaks's leak of diplomatic cables have harmed the USA--"hurt the public interest". (Pew Research)

I myself don't believe that the release of the cables have harmed the interests of ordinary Americans, so I asked myself whence this difference. The cables have shown the US government to be dishonest and pushy. If that's true, then it reveals mistakes. You need to recognize mistakes in order to correct them.

In brief, I suppose that the average American (or those surveyed, at least with this particular instrument) have a different view of what diplomats are doing, or what foreign policy is....or even what the "public interest" is....

Although, of course, the questions asked are always significant....
I wonder whether something akin to a Socratic conversation--one of some length
where the participants were not timid in saying what they think or following their thoughts through to conclusions... a conversation unlike a typical press conference, but a more honest sort of conversation where the participants did not fear exposing their own or another party's errors...... might produce a different result....

And, it occurs to me that I can borrow an idea from Richard W. Miller in his Globalising Justice: The Ethics of Poverty and Power (published by Oxford UP 2010)...

Without taking the time to document Miller's view, and relying solely upon my (admittedly fallible) memory, I seem to recall that Miller defended something like the following view: Relations between the USA and other countries would be better if the USA were friendlier, if the USA treated other countries as equals in something like the spirit of true friendship..

And, from what I've read about the new leaks, the leaked cables themselves show that the USA has been most unfriendly and over-bearing in its relations with other countries...

So, are the surveyed Americans working with a flawed conception of actual US practices? Do they think that the USA has actually been a good friend to other countries? (I guess that official US gov't propaganda would go in that direction...)
OR would they outright deny a view of Miller's sort if it were explained to them?
(Part of Miller's view, as I recall, consists in showing that the USA has not been a good
friend in the past; so, the new evidence provided by WikiLeads would only be further evidence in the same direction.) Would they deny in general that friendly relations are good? Or would they only deny that US has failed to be a good friend?

But this is only a hint, not a developed thought. It makes me wish I had the time to take another look at Miller's book. Regrettably, with the demands currently placed upon my time, there is no guarantee that I will be able to do so any time soon.