This is the case of precedent in the US for prosecution of a media publisher for the publication of information illegally obtained by a 3rd party. It doesn't end well for the government.
I suppose it's possible that a Wikileaks followup to Bartnicki might have a different outcome if the nature of the information being published is important. The Bartnicki court protected the publication of an intercepted phone call where a union boss conspiring to intimidate; publication of this helped the public interest. I suppose you could argue what Wikileaks is doing is likely to get people killed and harm national policy and that makes it different. Child porn is illegally obtained true information too--you can't publish it the Court wants to eliminate demand for the underlying illegal activity. There's an argument to be made there... just not a very good one.
The Pentagon Papers case isn't especially relevant because it dealt with the government trying to prevent publication. So-called "prior restraints" are dealt with more hostility than prosecution after the fact for some reason (as if threat of prosecution isn't a prior restraint) so it leaves the possibility of prosecution open.