What value does adding the real name of the person to the article bring to you, the reader? Would you interpret it any differently if the name was different?
Seems like a pretty clear cut case for not mentioning the name.
> What value does adding the real name of the person to the article bring to you, the reader?
Honestly, it's hard to tell without the article being published and seeing what comes of it?
It's not like particularly rare for an article to be published where the journalist includes the name and two or three aliases of the subject of the article, and suddenly a lot of people realize that the person they thought they were dealing with in an isolated way is actually engaged in a much larger pattern of behavior -- the person who skipped out on a couple of grand in rent with a sob story under one name did the same thing ten more times under three different names, the guy with a family in one state has a couple more in two different states that didn't know about each other, the "reference" that spoke so well about a former employee is actually said employee, etc etc etc.
Well, I don't know much about this person or the article that was coming up, hence making a general point. [0]
But generally when writing a piece on anybody it's normal to gather all kinds of details about one's life. Profession/job, educational history, some basic family background and name is usually one of them too.
Now again if the journalist has a good relationship with the person and they say they really want to go by XYZ instead of their full name, this is a perfectly valid request to me. But the notion that one is committing a grave crime if they don't comply (or ask) is another story.
Say back in the day I wrote a little piece on something that had absolutely nothing to do with me. Some journalist got interested in it and called me to discuss it. Spent most of the time discussing my own background. Hardly talked about my story at all. Wasn't enthused about this but I understand that's something people generally want to know.
[0] I mean correct me if I'm wrong but this person publishe[s/ed] under their regular first and second name. Mentions his actual life and experiences in his publicly available writings. Is generally easy to track down. Has a big cult following. But wants their last name redacted. Again, not saying that the journalist shouldn't honor the request. But nonetheless the whole situation is a bit bizarre. And sooner or later his full name will be out there (probably already is). So he's essentially asking for his full name not to rank too well in search results?
> Pseudonymous publishing has a long and respected history.
Well there's definitely a history of authors publishing pseudonymously. I don't know of a tradition of keeping the identities secret even after they've been revealed. Unless legally mandated as it is in come countries[0].
I mean someone afraid of getting killed for their writings would certainly not make it obvious who they are and then rely on others not mentioning it. There's certainly no tradition of that.
The whole phenomenon of "doxxing" as I understand it is something new. In the most radical form the ask seems to be that you should outright not mention any information about a person unless it has been explicitly volunteered to you for publishing.
I guess the problem here is many people publish publicly on the Internet not expecting much of anything. And then after they become notorious they may regret giving up their privacy. So there's a new push to create a stronger norm of what's considered private and who's considered a public figure.
[0] say some places will mandate redacting last names of people charged with crimes
> I guess the problem here is many people publish publicly on the Internet not expecting much of anything. And then after they become notorious they may regret giving up their privacy.
I will definitely tell my kids to never use their real names online. Maybe let them brainstorm an alias they will use consistently, so that their friends will know. Just in case they would want one day to have a fresh start, get rid of whatever haters and stalkers they happened to collect in the past, etc.
Unfortunately, in the Age of Online Advertising, many websites have using the real name as a condition in their terms of service. They will not verify the name when you create the account, but they might do it later if someone reports you. Should I teach them to lie? Should I teach them to use a fake photo? Sooner or later someone will upload a photo with them, and tag them, anyway.
Also, if you use a pseudonym, you better make a habit of changing it regularly, because at some moment someone will dox you.
...and that's with the technology we have today. Maybe in the near future an artificial intelligence will connect everything you ever wrote online, regardless of the pseudonyms or whatever, based on the statistical analysis of your writing, or something like that.
Journalists and writers in general aim to make a story appealing to their readers. One way they do this is bring to life their subjects, and some ways they can do that is to name the subject, tell readers what neighborhood the subject lives in, age, what kind of life they lead etc. People are interested in other people.
It has value but it's a mechanism that isn't necessarily needed in all cases.
One could do a thought experiment imagining a group of newspaper readers evaluating an edition where names of subjects were not given and one where they were. Which edition would be more interesting?
> some ways they can do that is to name the subject
That is "to give the subject a name", not "to reveal the name of the subject". It's usually "Maria [name changed] is the youngest of three daughters, her parents ...". That gives the subject a name, but there's no need for it to be the full name, or even the actual first name, because the story tend to be about the circumstances or what happened to the subject, not their name.
"Public figure" doesn't really go well with "wants to remain pseudonymous". He writes a blog as a personal hobby, he's not a celebrity or politician.
And yes, that's pretty often true about subjects of articles that do not get doxxed, because "Maria, NYC, Nurse" is enough to give you an idea about the person but far away from being enough for individual identification. And, of course, it doesn't matter for the story, just as the name doesn't matter for any profile about SSC.
Honestly, it's hard to tell without the article being published and seeing what comes of it?
It's not like particularly rare for an article to be published where the journalist includes the name and two or three aliases of the subject of the article, and suddenly a lot of people realize that the person they thought they were dealing with in an isolated way is actually engaged in a much larger pattern of behavior -- the person who skipped out on a couple of grand in rent with a sob story under one name did the same thing ten more times under three different names, the guy with a family in one state has a couple more in two different states that didn't know about each other, the "reference" that spoke so well about a former employee is actually said employee, etc etc etc.