[stared]

First and foremost, I hope that the journalist gets revealed and fired. NYT is a reputable journal and shouldn't tolerate such unprofessional and potentially dangerous behavior. The person breached a few lines of ethical journalism, and for no justified reason:

First, purposefully using an incorrect name (and Scott Alexander's online identity is Scott Alexander). In many other cases, even if the name is known publicly, and it is (or was) a legal anme, a journalist does not need to write it.

Second, for everyone having vocal opinions, it puts them in real danger. If revealing someone's identity (or a threat of such) makes someone close their blog, the journalist have already made their damage.

Third, it erodes trust in journalists. Such journalists make any other journalism harder, as people have justified reasons not to talk. Not every person wants to increase their risk.

I hope that until the journalist gets fired, no activist, whistleblower, a person who wants to speak about professional malpractice, controversial artist etc. won't talk to NYT. For their own safety.

[rmrfstar]

> NYT is a reputable journal

The people who lied us into Iraq?

[huffmsa]

The NYT isn't reputable anymore. Haven't been for a while. Case in point, this article they might publish.

They fired most of their senior editors in 2017 because they were both too expensive and enforcing old school journalist standards and integrity which doesn't generate clicks like hot handed opinion pieces followed by reverse opinion pieces does.

Though mind you that senior group was one of the biggest cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq, so take their integrity with a grain of salt.

[paulgb]

> Case in point, this article they might publish.

As an NYT subscriber, I'm very concerned by this, but I think it's ironic that people skeptical of the media because they don't wait to get facts right are so willing to jump to the conclusion that Scott's account is the full story. I'm inclined to believe Scott, but just as a remotely plausible hypothetical: there's also been rumors of a hit piece floating around for a few days[1]. Maybe they uncovered something Scott doesn't want out there besides just his identity and this is his way of seeding distrust before it gets out.

[1] https://twitter.com/TauTeFox/status/1273775737527394306

[huffmsa]

If the piece can run without the guy's name then it should.

If he's violating HIPAA or something, then sure, name names. But if it's simply about the content of the blog, then his nomme de guerre should suffice.

[sinker]

Isn't this just speculation? He gave out enough good reasons for his identity to not be known, the biggest is that he works as a professional psychiatrist with clients of wide ranging political stances.

He's also, I suspect (I don't follow his blog), given and written enough to at least earn enough good faith to be taken at his word.

[paulgb]

Yes, I give him the benefit of the doubt, but at the time I wrote the comment NYC was barely awake yet and people were already cancelling their subscriptions and calling for the journalist to be fired.

To be honest, I was hoping NYT would have cleared things up by now, but I've been monitoring Twitter and haven't seen anything.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

I guess part of the problem is that there are few reputable sources. Reuters still seems ok. So does Financial Times. WSJ dropped in quality, but still seems to cater well tonita audience.

[baud147258]

> old school journalist standards and integrity

Where were those when they wrote about Iraq?

[chungus_khan]

Or US-aligned coups. Passive voice and aggressively dodging the word "coup" can go a long way.

All awfully convenient for the State Department, and equally convenient for the paper's relationships with their contacts within it and other parts of the US government.

[mijoharas]

I saw this mentioned twice. What did they write?

[huffmsa]

Already been mentioned.

[baud147258]

Sorry, I missed that part.

[catacombs]

> I hope that the journalist gets revealed and fired.

Not going to happen. The reporter was doing his job. No one will lose their job just because your favorite blogger agreed to go on the record for an interview and is not upset that his identity will be revealed.

[stared]

It doesn't matter if anyones favorite or hated.

Breaking trust, going against wished how people prefer to be addressed and endangering people for now good reason - well, it's at most style of irresponsible, tabloid-level journalism.

If NYT aims for tabloid level standard, indeed, the journalist was doing his job.

[catacombs]

> Breaking trust, going against wished how people prefer to be addressed and endangering people for now good reason - well, it's at most style of irresponsible, tabloid-level journalism.

Did you read SSC's post? SSC didn't mention anything of a "promise" or "agreement" for the reporter to not use his name. The reporter found it another way.

Now, if SSC explicitly said the reporter promised not to use his name, then that opens a new can of worms.

[stared]

Doxxing is not something new. Scott Alexander is clear about his anonymity.

If a journalist interviewed a popular camgirl who introduced herself as (say) LustyClaraXXX, and then "did research" to compare pictures, and revealed her legal name an occupation (say, a schoolteacher), would you consider it ethical?

If yes, why so? If no, why so?

[catacombs]

> If a journalist interviewed a popular camgirl who introduced herself as (say) LustyClaraXXX, and then "did research" to compare pictures, and revealed her legal name an occupation (say, a schoolteacher), would you consider it ethical?

It really depends on the context of the story, with additional nuances that a competent editor must consider:

Is this camgirl the central figure of this story?

What are her reasons for not revealing her real name?

You say she is a school teacher. What kind of teacher? Is she a well-known professor? Is she someone who teaches kindergarten?

Does she make more money from camming than being a teacher? That in itself could be another story about the system.

And on and on and on.

[AftHurrahWinch]

Journalists shouldn't print anonymous articles. Journalists should use anonymous sources as little as possible.

"Tabloid level" journalism is how I would describe stories full of anonymous sources.

[catacombs]

> Journalists shouldn't print anonymous articles. Journalists should use anonymous sources as little as possible.

Correct. But there are times when anonymous sources are necessary. Look at WaPo and NYT's political coverage. They use many political insiders who can't go on the record but reveal necessary information for the public.

One example: Trump's "shit hole countries" comment. That came from anonymous sources who were in the room, backed up with a few on-the-record commends from outsiders.

[hackissimo123]

> I hope that the journalist gets revealed

The name of the journalist in question is no secret; spend 5 minutes browsing Twitter or the SSC subreddit and you'll figure it out.