Trading blind faith in politicians for blind faith in editors

Jeff Jarvis makes a good point in his article entitled, "The Conversation We Should Be Having About Secrets":

"[The editors of the New York Times] say that it is right and necessary for the press to report on what government is doing -- and, of course, I agree -- but they do not address the limits of that, other than to say that they know their own limits and that they have not revealed other secrets in the past. So shouldn't we know those limits as well? For if we don't, then aren't we merely trading blind faith in politicians, properly balanced by the press, with blind faith in editors, balanced by nothing more than government attacks -- and now, perhaps, bloggers?"

As I've argued before, transparency is one of the best ways for the MSM to restore credibility with news consumers. How can the New York Times be so good at investigative journalism without understanding the story about their own newspaper (and their entire industry) that's staring them right in the face?