[webnrrd2k]

The issue of accounting for other people's opinions and experiences is a good one to bring up - it is a broad way of framing this whole SSC controversy.

Part of the reason why it's rare is, I think, because of our schools. A lot of education pushes people to see things as having only one correct answer. That it's more important to win the debate than to explore ideas. There is not much emphasis on how one develops solid and correct ideas. There is a tendency towards justifying ideas, coming up with good-sounding reasons, whether or not they are actually true.

Also, writing that explores other perspectives in a fact-based manner can easily come across as an if-by-whiskey fallacy [1].

As far as a real answer goes - I think that it's a genuinly difficult problem. Religious figures have been talking about perspectives and empathy and compassion for thousands of years. It's clearly a big thing.

As far as the specifics of the SSC controversy, my attempt to understand both sides is this: Scott made ethical commitments as a psychiatrist, both to his clients in particular and his profession in general. The NYT made ethical commitments both to their readers in particular and to journalistic standards in general. In the SSC controversy these commitments conflict. Whose commitments should win? Whose commitments are the most important?

Scott found a way to make his ethical commitments work for him. Maybe it was a compromise, but I think it worked well enough so that his patients couldn't easily find out who he was. I think that the NYT could have easily made it work with their commitments, and everyone would have been better off.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey#:~:text=If%20w...

[covidthrow]

> Scott made ethical commitments as a psychiatrist, both to his clients in particular and his profession in general. The NYT made ethical commitments both to their readers in particular and to journalistic standards in general. In the SSC controversy these commitments conflict.

I'm sorry, what "ethical commitments" did the NYT have that required them to reveal Scott's identity? They have—over the last few years—systematically abused the privilege of anonymous sources. If this was some sort of manifest reversal of said abuse, I could maybe understand. But that's not what this was. It was a partisan choice to "out" him in a direct or incidental attempt to cancel/silence him.

They hold absolute secrecy for other sources that seek anonymity. (Or, in some cases, when revelation of that source wouldn't be a good look for their paper.) I cannot fathom any sort of ethical purpose—to their readers or to journalism—that necessitates his reveal.

Maybe you can help me understand the gymnastics of contorting ethics in such a way that this makes any logical sense, I would appreciate it. Because—from my vantage point and from innumerable other examples—the NYT has tossed every ethical framework out the window for the sake of their ego, id, wallets, power, and agenda.

They try to maintain the aire of integrity in their rapidly crumbling empire, but the emperor has no clothes. So please help me see what I'm missing.

[webnrrd2k]

I honestly don't know all of the ethical commitments that the NYT has made. But I'm assuming that they are at least broadly following some standard of journalistic ethics [1]. I believe that journalistic ethics are a fairly standard part of journalism school, and that many of the reporters at the NYT have been exposed to them.

As far as the NYT abusing their sources for the last few years, well, I could easily believe that it's true. But I think that it was clear from the context that I was speaking specifically about the current SSC controversy.

As far as doxing Scott, I agree that it was the wrong thing to do. Also, as Scott himself often discusses, it's important and worth while to try to understand the other side. For example, the New Statesman wrote about Scott's doxxing [2] earlier. It at least considers the possibility that the NYT has a reason for doxxing Scott, that they have a reason for their policies regarding anonymous sources.

It's certainly possible that the NYT is simply a bunch of slavering monsters who, as you wrote "tossed every ethical framework out the window for the sake of their ego, id, wallets, power, and agenda." But I'd bet that there was a fair bit of internal discussion over the issue. I'm willing to give them at least some credit, even if I disagree with their conclusions.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standa...

[2] https://www.newstatesman.com/world/2020/06/why-new-york-time...

[covidthrow]

> I honestly don't know all of the ethical commitments that the NYT has made. But I'm assuming that they are at least broadly following some standard of journalistic ethics [1]. I believe that journalistic ethics are a fairly standard part of journalism school, and that many of the reporters at the NYT have been exposed to them.

I understand you aren't sure what they've enumerated for themselves. The point is that they don't follow most of the most obvious standards one could conceive on a whim. If one had no formal knowledge of ethics, but chose to engage in a quick thought experiment in which one identifies "the basis of communicating truth", the NYT (currently) do not adhere to practically any beyond "factual".

Let's say they follow the generalizations in your wikipedia link:

> ...most share common elements including the principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability.

Abject failure on:

- accuracy

- objectivity

- impartiality

And just a bit further down:

> ...the ethics of journalism include the principle of "limitation of harm." This may involve the withholding of certain details from reports, such as... information not materially related to the news report where the release of such information might, for example, harm someone's reputation.

Well the NYT article is an absolute rejection of this principal. (Not that you disagree.)

I'm not sure what ethical standards you do think they follow, but whatever conversation they had about whether to reveal his name (or the ethics of the article at large) clearly didn't emphasize honorable intent in good faith.

The most generous interpretation I can muster for their ethics revolves around some notion of, "for the greater good." But history is pretty clear that's an invariably evil form of ethics.

I have no doubt they think they're doing "good", but their rejection of objective standards puts them in the camp of "partisan propaganda", far away from "journalism".