>However, if the NYT is so irresponsible as to keep publishing illegally leaked material, I don't know what assurances Trump can give since leaks to damage Trump himself have been going for months and nobody has managed to stop it.
>
>The NYT's take? "The images and information presented were neither graphic nor disrespectful of victims, and consistent with the common line of reporting on weapons used in horrific crimes. We have strict guidelines on how and in what ways we cover sensitive stories. Our coverage of Monday's horrific attack has been both comprehensive and responsible."
>
>IOW no mention of damage to international relations that they caused that Trump is now trying to remedy, or of their publishing a second round of leaks after UK Home Secretary Rudd had already explained the damage they caused.
>

Yes.
The NYT is still my go-to source for news - my home page in fact- but in this case the push for a scoop exceeded prudent judgement.