[charia]

This is a mistake in the understanding of the situation. The NYTimes and all major press outlets anonymize sources. For example for this article, the NYTimes journalist gave people who spoke with him about SSC the choice to remain anonymous.

The article was going to frame Scott as a subject. The real debate is if subjects of articles also deserve full anonymity. The NYTimes' policy is to generally not give subjects a right to anonymity.

The New Yorker article author does bring up another article the NYTimes published about Chapo Trap House where host Virgil Texas was one of the subjects but also given anonymity.

The question is if the decision not to give Scott anonymity as a subject despite others receiving it in recent history is one borne out of maliciousness, callousness, incompetence or a cultural disagreement between NYTimes reporter and an internet blogger.

[Natsu]

No, this part of the situation is both well known and already rebutted. Look at ggreer's comment up thread. They've made multiple exceptions to this policy in the past.

The harm to Scott's patients and their ability to have continuity of care alone should outweigh any supposed interest in needing to know the man behind the pseudonym when the writing under the pseudonym is all that's relevant here.