The White House has been fighting back against the Times liberal perception that any classified information that somehow makes its way to them is fair game. Management at the New York Times realizes, however, that their disregard for exposing state secrets has also made the paper and its employees fair game too, and that includes facing government subpoenas, the jailing of reporters to reveal their sources, and ultimately, prosecution.
With all this in mind, you might think that the paper would think twice about showcasing classified information on the its front page that would be read by consumers - and terrorists. They're thinking twice alright, thinking twice on how they can thwart "the persistent legal perils that confront us," as Bill Keller has put it.
To this end, as the New York Observer reports, the Times is now giving lessons to their reporters on how they can best "dispos[e] of story drafts and [cut] back on telephone and e-mail contact with sources--or us[e] disposable cell phones for important calls." In addition, New York Times reporter David Barstow has recommended other subterfuges such as "altering Times expense-sheet forms so that a reporter does not have to list the names of sources who have been taken out for lunch or dinner." Barstow adds that even company e-mail should conveniently disappear in a short time in order to hinder any investigation of who might be leaking secrets to the Times staff. "There has been a conversation about changing our e-mail system so that e-mail is automatically deleted after 30 days unless you mark the e-mail for preservation," says Barstow.
The Times isn't concerned about the confidential information being illegally from government sources to the detriment of our ability to prosecute the war on terror (among other things). What the Times is worried about is covering their own asses as they obtain and publish this illegal information.
What the Times is doing is trying to claim for itself the right to decide what classified government information is published for the American people to see and what information isn't. Some may be comfortable with that arrangement, but the last time I checked we elected Presidents and members of Congress to make those decisions, not newspaper reporters and editors. And, given the one-sided and agenda-driven nature of the media, I'm not sure those journalists and editors would be capable of acting in the in the best interests of American citizen (as opposed to the best interests of their agendas and their financial bottom lines) even if making such decision were their responsibility.
They are aiding and abetting illegal leaks of classified government information. Anyone who thinks this is a good thing for our country is a naive, arrogant fool.