If they fired everyone who leaks we would have no public officials.

So be it.

Government officials leaking things is one of their essential functions.

You're joking, but I think this is true and often good. The government works for us. The press is there to inform us. An informed citizenry is a vital component for democracy. In my view, government generally shouldn't be keeping secrets.[1] The worse government is at keeping secrets, the happier I am.

[1] Yes, reasonable exceptions apply, including ones relating to privacy, national security, and criminal investigations where an element of surprise is needed.

Government employees are not supposed to leak, but not because of commercial concerns.

What a weird thing to be worried about.

"It's not fair that Deep Throat talked to the Post first!"

Really? You're not concerned that government employees may be picking up some income on the side by leaking stories to whichever news outlet pays them the most? That's just a weird thing to be worried about?

I think far more good comes from transparent government than harm.

It’s my hope that the private sector compensated Snowden at least 50% of what they made in ad rev for his leaks.

If government is as great as government makes itself out to be the people will be overjoyed to find out all the things it does.

Why would I care if someone makes money smuggling accurate information through the press?

The whole reason we need a press is so accurate information gets smuggled to us.

I agree that we want accurate information about government abuses to be smuggled out. But that has nothing to do with this situation.

This situation is about one newspaper getting a commercial advantage from publishing information a few hours earlier than their competitors. It reduces the quality of information the public sees, because many people will read only the report they initially see in the NYT, which includes only the commentary by people they decided to talk to. Whereas if all the papers got the information at the same time, people seeing the initial reports could flip between several sources of commentary, and possibly get a more balanced set of views.

As far as I know, there is not a finite allowance of time the public is provided to digest information before forming opinions on it.

That one outlet may have a slight time advantage over another is always going to the case (efficiency and process variations). That one outlet may have a slight informational advantage is always going to be the case (better sources, better journalists).

You're worried about the wrong thing.