[1] Yes, reasonable exceptions apply, including ones relating to privacy, national security, and criminal investigations where an element of surprise is needed.
What a weird thing to be worried about.
"It's not fair that Deep Throat talked to the Post first!"
The whole reason we need a press is so accurate information gets smuggled to us.
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.
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.
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.