The NYT could justify some of it's earlier revelations by playing on the nations fear of domestic wiretapping, eavesdropping, or torture.
This story had none of that. It was a legal program, congress was fully briefed on it, it was effective, and it dealt exclusively with international wire transfers of funds. Even a doofus understands that this story only helped the NYT and terrorists.
Publishing this story was indefensible, and even political neophytes will begin to question NYT motives. That is the best thing that could happen. This puts them on the defensive, and on the airways trying to explain why they are not terror sympathizers.
I think the doofuses who are paying attention understand it. But I'm not sure how many are paying attention. I think Mr. and Mrs. America just think, 'Oh, it's those New York people arguing about things again,' and go on about their business. I think that's what the NY Times is counting on.
To me, it will only hurt them if their advertisers start to pull out. That would hurt. They could care less what you and I and the rest of middle America think.
Also, I wonder what portion of their profit comes from the International Herald Tribune as opposed to the NY Times? If it's substantial, I can guarantee you the international community could care less if they're helping the terrorists to get at Bush (which they clearly are).