While I certainly agree that the press as an aggragate entity (and likewise the NYT specifically) has shown little to no restraint or tact in reporting sensitive information, in this case I'm going to have to disagree with you.
Let's start with your analogies - they are, unfortunately, imperfect, and therefore misleading. If we are going to use an analogy for this program as a purchase, then it is a gun - a weapon, rather than a tool. It is going to be pointed at somebody in a offensive fashion, which brings it one step closer to "abuse" than a piece of cutlery. Likewise, KFC is a corporation - a public institution that is some ways similar to but ultimately extremely different from our subject - the US government.
Because we are talking about the government in an allegedly-democratic state, EVERYTHING it does is of public interest, because the public relies upon its knowledge of government action to make informed decisions in the voting booth. "Classified" does NOT mean that the public does not have a right to know - it means that the public's right to know has been temporarily overridden by a greater concern (usually national security). The term is almost always applied to information regarding EVENTS (which is to say, occurances or operations that occur over a relatively brief timespan) and NOT to long-running programs because such programs have an increased weight in regards to the public interest and therefore it is more difficult to justify their continued classification.
Now consider that not only is there the potential for abuse with this program (and that, indeed, is enough) but also that the legality of the program itself is considered questionable, and it becomes even more important that the public be aware of its existance.
In my opinion, the NYT did the right thing. That they broke the law in reporting classified info is moot. That doesn't mean they should avoid prosecution - actions have consequences, regardless of whether you are right or not, and actions where you avoid or ignore the consequences have diminished value. But as a moral factor, the legality is a non-issue - freedom of the press exists in our country because the primary role of the press is as a watchdog of government behavior. If they backed down because the government said "you can't do that" they would have little value in that role, First Amendment or not.
Of course, we don't live in a world of black-and-white - it's up to the press to show restraint at times, as well as be a watchdog. But the deciding factor here for me is that the revelation of this information is a valid action is that it places noone in immediate and tangible peril. One could argue that revealing an anti-terrorism program that relies on secrecy to be effective weakens our national security, and thus puts us all in peril. However, this is a weak argument as it is impossible to tie consequence to action - in the end, there's no way to justifiably say that 'X happened because of Y'. Likewise, the lifetime of anything that relies on secrecy is naturally limited, and the fact that some associated with the program were already questioning its continued existance pretty much puts the final nail in the coffin over how harmful its revelation is likely to be.
no subject
Let's start with your analogies - they are, unfortunately, imperfect, and therefore misleading. If we are going to use an analogy for this program as a purchase, then it is a gun - a weapon, rather than a tool. It is going to be pointed at somebody in a offensive fashion, which brings it one step closer to "abuse" than a piece of cutlery. Likewise, KFC is a corporation - a public institution that is some ways similar to but ultimately extremely different from our subject - the US government.
Because we are talking about the government in an allegedly-democratic state, EVERYTHING it does is of public interest, because the public relies upon its knowledge of government action to make informed decisions in the voting booth. "Classified" does NOT mean that the public does not have a right to know - it means that the public's right to know has been temporarily overridden by a greater concern (usually national security). The term is almost always applied to information regarding EVENTS (which is to say, occurances or operations that occur over a relatively brief timespan) and NOT to long-running programs because such programs have an increased weight in regards to the public interest and therefore it is more difficult to justify their continued classification.
Now consider that not only is there the potential for abuse with this program (and that, indeed, is enough) but also that the legality of the program itself is considered questionable, and it becomes even more important that the public be aware of its existance.
In my opinion, the NYT did the right thing. That they broke the law in reporting classified info is moot. That doesn't mean they should avoid prosecution - actions have consequences, regardless of whether you are right or not, and actions where you avoid or ignore the consequences have diminished value. But as a moral factor, the legality is a non-issue - freedom of the press exists in our country because the primary role of the press is as a watchdog of government behavior. If they backed down because the government said "you can't do that" they would have little value in that role, First Amendment or not.
Of course, we don't live in a world of black-and-white - it's up to the press to show restraint at times, as well as be a watchdog. But the deciding factor here for me is that the revelation of this information is a valid action is that it places noone in immediate and tangible peril. One could argue that revealing an anti-terrorism program that relies on secrecy to be effective weakens our national security, and thus puts us all in peril. However, this is a weak argument as it is impossible to tie consequence to action - in the end, there's no way to justifiably say that 'X happened because of Y'. Likewise, the lifetime of anything that relies on secrecy is naturally limited, and the fact that some associated with the program were already questioning its continued existance pretty much puts the final nail in the coffin over how harmful its revelation is likely to be.