It's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy if they never test the length of their leash-- they could easily make a story out of "we said X and so our access was cut off, this isn't right" but it'd require an ounce of spine.
Oh they're all for appearing adversarial. They just want to never actually be adversarial.
For example in the Levinson case, NYTimes withheld information for 6 years: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/world/middleeast/a-disappe...
> The New York Times has known about the former agent’s C.I.A. ties since late 2007, when a lawyer for the family gave a reporter access to Mr. Levinson’s files and emails. The Times withheld that information to avoid jeopardizing his safety or the efforts to free him. On Thursday, The Associated Press disclosed Mr. Levinson’s role with the intelligence agency. In a statement, the White House said it had urged the wire service not to publish its article “out of concern for Mr. Levinson’s life.” After Thursday’s disclosure, the Levinson family said it had no objection to The Times’s publishing this article.
In the end your comment seems to support the parent. NYTimes sits on stories at the behest of the US government, only releases it when another agency beats them to the punch.