[gwern]

Using anonymous sources to relay secret information like government insiders is very different from public pseudonymous writers. 'Scott Alexander' is of interest only as 'Scott Alexander'; he is famous for writing as 'Scott Alexander'; if you want to find criticism of Scott Alexander, you will find it by asking people about 'Scott Alexander'; and he blogs about general topics with reference to publicly verifiable things like scientific research, as opposed to focusing solely on his anecdotal experience; what does knowing his real name add or let a journalist verify? Does it somehow let you verify that he does in fact blog at SSC...? (Yes, he sometimes talks about his psychiatric patients, but like all psychiatrists, he blends and tweaks stories to protect his patients, and knowing his real name is John Smith gives you no more way of verifying said stories than when they were written by 'Scott Alexander'.)

[zaroth]

It’s even worse than not having his name being irrelevant. By forcing the issue the NYT has now become the story. Whatever piece the NYT originally wanted to write is now subsumed by their own actions.

I am not a journalist, but I have to imagine that “don’t become the story” is pretty high up on the list of journalistic ideals.

When it’s someone the NYT feels they want to protect, they will go to any length, even jail time, to protect them. It’s very hard for me not to conclude ill intent on behalf of the NYT in wanting to draw fire toward SSC based on Scott’s ideology. Asking the question “why this story now” in the current hyper-partisan and cancel-rage environment brings me to one obvious conclusion even though Scott himself doesn’t make such a leap.

[jsjohnst]

> doesn’t make such a leap

While he doesn’t directly state it, I got the impression that he felt the motive for doxxing him was that very reason. I may be reading between the lines too much, but I got that impression none the less.

[Paul-ish]

By using his real name, readers who know that name can get more out of the article. Imagine if he is actually a state senator, or a minor celebrity. The reporter here isn't doing the difficult calculus of "does revealing his name do more good than harm" but is instead relying on company policy. Alternatively the reporter has done the calculus and are using policy as a shield. "Nothing personal, it's just business"

[gwern]

The reporter knows perfectly well that Scott is not actually a state senator, and that he is a minor celebrity... as 'Scott Alexander'.

[stickfigure]

Let's change the setting to Weimar Germany, and the subject is a prominent Jewish blogger. Still think it's ok to expose his real identity? "Just business"?

[catacombs]

> what does knowing his real name add or let a journalist verify? Does it somehow let you verify that he does in fact blog at SSC...?

Correct. Anyone, whether it's an individual or group of people, can be "Scott Alexander."

What does it add? It makes the story more credible under scrutiny.

[pdonis]

> Anyone, whether it's an individual or group of people, can be "Scott Alexander."

So what? The story isn't about who Scott Alexander is. The story is about the blog. Anyone can go to the website and read the blog (or at least they could before the NYT pulled this screwup). If the NYT wants their story about the blog to be credible, they just need to tell the truth about what the blog says.

[catacombs]

> So what? The story isn't about who Scott Alexander is. The story is about the blog.

It's about the blog and its author. It's like writing about a controversial book without any mention of the author. That's not possible.

[zestyping]

Is it necessary to reveal J. K. Rowling's real name in order to write an article about her controversial views? I think not.

[philwelch]

Funny you should mention that:

> A Warning is a 2019 book-length exposé of the Trump administration, anonymously authored by someone described as a "senior Trump administration official". It is a follow-up to an anonymous op-ed published by the New York Times in September 2018.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Warning_(book)

[pdonis]

> It's about the blog and its author.

The author's persona on the blog, yes. That doesn't mean the author's real name needs to be revealed.

[kelnos]

The author's name is irrelevant to that story, because the story is about the author only insofar is that relates to the blog, which is written under a pseudonym. In fact, it's actively confusing to bring anything but the pseudonym into this.

[viridian]

I don't follow your logic, maybe I'm missing something. Let's say I publicly claim to be Scott Alexander. The owner of slatestarcodex with the email address [e-mail] also claims to be scott alexander? Doesn't the latter claim carry far more weight? If so, why is the personage relevant?

[coldsnap427]

> Let's say I publicly claim to be Scott Alexander. The owner of slatestarcodex with the email address [e-mail] also claims to be scott alexander? Doesn't the latter claim carry far more weight?

It's just an email address. It could be Scott or it could be someone else. Yes, common sense would say it's Scott, but the reporter would have to still prove it's him. If you claim to be Scott, too, that will also need to be checked out.

Many people will take that information and run, but if you're writing for a national outlet, where accurate reporting is everything, your editor will say, "Yes, that might be Scott, but how do you know? What proof can you provide? If we get called out for a fact error, can you refute that claim?

[kyle-rb]

How does providing a last name make his authorship of the blog more credible though? And how does publishing it help? I don't see how the reporter or the readers have any way of verifying that the blogger of SSC has a last name matching the one from the article.

[viridian]

Forgive me for the repetition you are about to see, I'm attempting to apply a bit of formality to the reasoning in question:

The Scott who posts at slatestarcodex.com is the Scott who is [e-mail].

Therefore, the material Scott when attempting to pin down Scott in the context of slatestarcodex is [e-mail].

Human X out in meat space could or could not be Scott, but that much is immaterial, as [e-mail] has been shown to be directly linked to Scott Alexander the blogger as a means of contacting him.

Thus I ask: what better proof could one have that [e-mail] is Scott Alexander, author of slatestarcodex?

[coldsnap427]

> Thus I ask: what better proof could one have that [e-mail] is Scott Alexander, author of slatestarcodex?

From an editor's point of view, that's not enough, assuming the reporter has not done any form of reporting through interviews, public records and other methods.

[Smaug123]

I think you've missed the point. The point is that even if Scott were in fact a conglomerate of twenty people, Scott's writing is still the same, and is what draws people to the blog, and is ultimately why there's any story to be written at all. Nobody, but nobody, cares about the actual human originator(s) of the posts; it's the persona who matters.