|
|
|
|
|
by auganov
2151 days ago
|
|
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? |
|
Criticising the wrong people, or arguing with the beliefs of a mob, can be physically dangerous.
Anonymity gives writers of all kinds a platform to express an opinion without fear of violent reprisals from those who disagree.
Journalists also need to protect useful sources - hence the cliche "...according to people familiar with the matter."
As long as writers don't abuse this by promoting personal attacks on others, I'm completely fine with this.