I can't recall the specific examples, but Haberman has been called out for doing this before.  Frankly, unless she reveals that she does this or that is required (and to my knowledge she has never admitted to such things), to me, it is highly unethical for a reporter to do.

I mean, really, what kind of reporter sits on a major item when it is learned, especially when something could have been done about then only to save it for a later book?

What she has done is nothing like what Newsweek, Time, and US News used to do - they made it clear they had reporters embedded WITH the stated caveat that it was agreed beforehand what was seen in real-time would wait until after the election.

With all the absolutely lousy reporting going on, how is a story about a suspected 20 million bribe NOT news? 

Well, it's not news if you are a craven reporter trying to line your pockets and that is just what Haberman has become, just like all these other hack talking heads.