Guys, can we put the vitriol on hold, take step back and take a new look at this thing?
1) Unless journalists operate in war zones all we know is what the government tells us. No one on this board is happy with that idea.
2) News organizations have often reported facts pre-maturely in ways that were detremintal to military ops. The standard, as laid out by SCOTUS is that you don't for example, publish news of an impendig op. Geraldo Rivera, of FOX was an example of this. As an imbed he helpfully (to Saadam) drew a map in the sand indicating the direction of units advance. Anything else is fair game governed by ethical standards or statute law (rape shield laws for example).
3) The Times showed restraint and good judgement. Should they do it more often, yes. Would y'all have been so pissed if it were the Washington Times or FOX, I doubt it.
4) The military and the press actually have a pretty cordial, though tense, relationship. This is best illustrated by the imbed program that still exists. I went to high school with the UPI Pentagon reporter. She says there is a very cozy relationship (too cozy in her and my view) between the press and the military. She describded it like the old Warner Brothers cartoon where the sheep dog and he wolf walked to work toghther, then clocked in and spent the day beating the crap out of each other before clocking out and talking baseball.
In short, if you just want to be pissed at the Times, fine, but there are no grounds for it here.
FQ13