[Fnoord]

Anonymity and/or pseudonym are appropriate in certain situations. In this situation, you have a source you know which is credible (you know their name), and they ask you not to publish their name. In such a case, it is standard journalist ethics in The Netherlands to not disclose the name. Sex crimes and exploitation are two (good) examples of such, but there are other examples as well. Consider for example a whistle blower, a (former) member of a cult, or -to put it generally- someone who can, realistically, be threatened when their real name is released. Such is the very case here. I am in awe that The New York Times does not adhere to the very same principles as the Dutch media do, although I am aware that the vow has been broken here as well (such as in the case of Rob Oudkerk and Parool's Heleen van Royen).

[catacombs]

> In such a case, it is standard journalist ethics in The Netherlands to not disclose the name.

That's in The Netherlands, a country with different laws and regulations for the press.

This case is specific to the United States, with its own rules and protections.

[sigstoat]

there's nothing stopping the NYT from being more ethical than US law requires them to be. and they regularly argue that current US law isn't sufficiently ethical (though perhaps not on this issue).

[Fnoord]

I was talking about an aspect of the ethical standard for journalism in The Netherlands; not the law.