Good suggestion

Mario Loyola has a recommendation for all the journalistic ethicists out there:

When the New York Times publishes information that appears to have been illegally leaked, it should explain how it came across the information. At the very least, it should leave no doubts whether (a) classified information was in fact leaked, (b) classified information was leaked on background with due authorization, or (c) the reporter was only fed unclassified portions of the report. To say that it interviewed a whole bunch of people who spoke on condition of anonymity because "they were discussing a classified intelligence document" on its face suggests the commission of felony, without explaining anything important about why those people were in fact speaking on condition of anonymity.

I agree, but if it did that what would its reports have to report?

At the very least, until they start doing this, they should quit pretending to be professionals and pontificating on other people's ethics.