[duxup]

>How did it come to this?

Because leaks can have consequences and it's not clear to the NYT exactly what those might be?

It's a tough situation because the government may not be a trusted partner, but I understand asking / trying to avoid collateral damage.

[aleph_minus_one]

> Because leaks can have consequences and it's not clear to the NYT exactly what those might be?

With this, the NYT has decided that they want to be a government propaganda organ instead of a journalistic organ.

[user_7832]

> With this, the NYT has decided that they want to be a government propaganda organ instead of a journalistic organ.

It isn't "with this". In a way (in recent history) it always has been. Case in point, almost any political event. See what the NYT publishes on the Israel-Gaza conflict, in comparison with any middleeast/asian outlet. I'm not saying that this is always on purpose, it's likely a lot of it is human bias - but it doesn't change the fact that journalistic organizations have bias, and you need to read different papers for a complete picture.

[duxup]

I don't think that's what it means.

It's not an all or nothing deal.