I should disclose that I had already heard about this new policy a few weeks ago from a friend of the family who worked for Wal-Mart. I am sure Wal-Mart knew it wouldn’t stay a secret forever but I am also sure they didn’t want it as an NYT headline.
After writing so many leak-based stories, some of which can be plausibly argued to have harmed national security, the Times’ credibility is zero with me. I am sure their anti-Wal-Mart, anti-big business, pro-union, anti-capitalism tilt had much to do with pursuing and publishing this report.
I am not calling into question its right to publish the story, just the wisdom and relevance. If you know your story can have no positive effect but most probably have a negative one, such as encouraging people to shoplift from the world’s biggest retailer, why publish it, other than a desire to harm said retailer?
The leak came from WakeUpWalMart.com, an anti-Wal-Mart, union-funded web site set up to unionize Wal-Mart workers. Shouldn’t the motives of your source be a consideration? What does this story have to do with unionizing Wal-Mart? Nothing. What does it have to do with hurting Wal-Mart? A lot. Therein lies the reason the New York Times sucks and is obviously biased not only against the Bush administration, but America’s corporations as well.
I hate to bang the well-worn (and well-founded) "liberal media bias" drum- it’s not my intent. Media bias in itself is relatively harmless. When that media bias undermines national security or a corporation’s bottom line for no good reason*, the press becomes a news maker, not a news reporter. This is a bad thing and I’d like to hear a well-argued assessment from the opposing viewpoint.

• *(Wal-Mart isn’t doing anything illegal by changing its shoplifting policy, this isn’t Enron, I get that wrongdoing by corporations is newsworthy, don’t bother making that strawman)