[catacombs]

Reporters will try to get the person on record, but in the end, it's up to the source.

If he or she agrees to go on record, they should understand the potential risks.

It would behoove the reporter to lay out the options. Tricking someone to say something without knowing whether he or she is on the record is a big no-no.

[kerkeslager]

Ehhh, I don't think this accurately represents the situation with "on the record" or "off the record":

1. When a journalist identifies themself as a journalist, all conversations thereafter are assumed to be on the record unless specified otherwise.

2. Statements can't be made off the record after the fact--you have to say something is off the record before you say it for it to be considered off the record.

3. This is only journalist tradition, not law. Even if you say something is off the record, there's no real incentive for a journalist not to just publish it anyway, except their integrity. Journalists can and do break this rule, especially when they disagree with the person whose words they are reporting.

[catacombs]

> Ehhh, I don't think this accurately represents the situation with "on the record" or "off the record"

I am not tying SSC's situation with the general theme of on- and off-the-record.

I will say your explanation of the difference is spot on.

[CydeWeys]

That's what gets me in this situation.

Publishing the article with his full name if he's OK with that is an acceptable outcome.

Binning the article entirely if he's not OK with publishing his full name is also an acceptable outcome (though honestly it's a waste of time on all parties and it would have been better to make this constraint clear up front).

But publishing the article anyway and releasing his full name against his will, when he's the primary source for the story? That seems like a no-no. Interestingly, this hasn't happened yet, and seems like it may never at this rate.

[zozbot234]

The "constraint" against revealing Scott's real name has always been clear up-front to people who were familiar with his work, even on-line. If it wasn't clear enough to this NYT reporter, that's their problem.

[zepto]

Ok, but is it reasonable for people to understand the potential risks?

I don’t see any reporting on the dangers of talking to reporters. Where is the NYT piece on what happens to people after they have been linked to something in the news?

I think that given Scott Alexander’s experience, ‘don’t talk to reporters, ever’, is as sound advice as ‘don’t talk to the police without an attorney’.

[catacombs]

> I don’t see any reporting on the dangers of talking to reporters.

There are plenty of resources on how to handle talking with a reporter.

One thing I would suggest learning the difference between going on- and off-the-record and speaking on background.

> Where is the NYT piece on what happens to people after they have been linked to something in the news?

Here's a free one: Harvey Weinstein's victims. Despite them coming out about his abusive behaviors, his attorneys and henchman are going after them.

[zepto]

Where are these ‘plenty of resources’?

The Weinstein case seems to tell us nothing about the general risk of talking to reporters even though it is a data point.

It sounds like you are in full agreement with me otherwise though.

“Talking to reporters is very dangerous. Never do so without extensive study of the available resources.”