There was a lot of information in that article that could compromise those men. There was no need for it to go into that level of detail.

IMO, this article is just another example where the press has no sense of proportion or cares about the damage they do. I heard of one big news anchor (I can't remember if it was Dan Rather or Peter Jennings) who was asked a question at a seminar recently. The question was if he'd been a reporter back in 1944 and found out the details about D-Day ahead of time, would he print it? He said he would because it's news. Never mind the fact that publishing that info ahead of time would've been a big help to the Nazis. Never mind that it might've caused the invasion to fail, condemning millions of innocent people to prolonged Nazi occupation. Never mind that thousands more troops would've been killed in the invasion and that it might've been months, perhaps years, before another attempt was made. Nope, none of that mattered to him. If he had the info, he'd release it because it was "news."

For that reason alone, he and those who think like him can never be trusted with sensitive military information no matter how much they complain about being shut out. I'm not willing to sacrifice my son's life (or anyone else's son's life) so some butt head reporter can get a shot at winning a Pulitzer Prize and the respect of his peers.