You are correct.Nothing was done to the Tribune or Colonel McCormick,its right wing owner. FDR wanted a treason indictment, but his AG and Marshall persuaded FDR that such an indictment would prove the story to the Japs. Letting it go, would allow the story to disappear as another wartime myth. In any event there is no evidence that Japan had even been aware of the story.
A more recent example of intelligence that could have been revealed was the Navy's successful tapping of the underwater cables of the Soviet's Northern and Pacific bases, Murmansk and Vladivostok. These missions involved entering Soviet waters and placing recordind devices on the cables and retrieving them at a later date. Such invasion of sovereign territory was in violation of international law. Would the Times of the late 60s thru the 80s have been so quick to reveal these missions?
"Would the Times of the late 60s thru the 80s have been so quick to reveal these missions?"
The Times would have probably been unaware of these missions to begin with because it seems that even at the height of the hippie-no-nukes-New-Ice-Age-is-upon-us movement, we still had (somewhat-more) responsible people in government. The Times,like any other media outlet, only repeats what others tell them (that is, when it isn't making stuff up). That's the nature of the beast.
That sort of information (US NAvy tapping Russkie phone cables inside Soviet Territory) could have started a nuclear war, had it been known.
The Times doesn't believe that a terrorist organization has (let alone might acquire) a nuclear arsenal. Only us nasty, Haliburton-lovin', Neanderthal republicans believe that Usama Bin Hidin' could get a nuke, not the Kennedy School Tea and Watercress Sandwiches set. There's a big distinction there.
Had it been an absolute, iron-clad, incontravertible truth that a terrorist or Saddam DID posses a nuke, the Times might have (I'm not saying 'would have') sat on the story because of the obvious implications.