NY Times editor "Editors try to balance the value of the material to public understanding against potential dangers to the national interest."

Bullshit.

The NYT could care less about divulging classified information and more about increasing subscriptions.  As is, NYT has had to make their online paper a pay subscription for most articles.  This indicates that they are losing money.

Let's look at the rest of what he said:

The question of dealing with classified information is rarely easy, and never to be taken lightly. Editors try to balance the value of the material to public understanding against potential dangers to the national interest. As a general rule we withhold secret information that would expose confidential sources to reprisals or that would reveal operational intelligence that might be useful to adversaries in war. We excise material that might lead terrorists to unsecured weapons material, compromise intelligence-gathering programs aimed at hostile countries, or disclose information about the capabilities of American weapons that could be helpful to an enemy.-NYT

Am I the only one that remembers secret powerpoint slideshows released during the Bush Administration?   Doubt it.

Of course, most of these documents will be made public regardless of what The Times decides. WikiLeaks has shared the entire archive of secret cables with at least four European publications, has promised country-specific documents to many other news outlets, and has said it plans to ultimately post its trove online. For The Times to ignore this material would be to deny its own readers the careful reporting and thoughtful analysis they expect when this kind of information becomes public.
But the more important reason to publish these articles is that the cables tell the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and money. They shed light on the motivations — and, in some cases, duplicity — of allies on the receiving end of American courtship and foreign aid. They illuminate the diplomacy surrounding two current wars and several countries, like Pakistan and Yemen, where American military involvement is growing. As daunting as it is to publish such material over official objections, it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name.-NYT

Is it always necessary for journalists to publish everything regardless of source damage to third parties and potential damage to the state?  I say no.  Prefacing his analysis with "well, the information was already there" is sophomoric at best.  This is a time where not only lives are in the balance, but the security of our own country and others around the world.  Further dissemination of these documents is self-serving to the NYT and nothing more.