Comment by catacombs
6 years ago
> The implication being that the NYT wants to use real names to drive clicks and appease advertisers?
This shows a lack of how journalism works. Using real names isn't to "drive clicks" and "appease advertisers." It's to add credibility to a story.
Think about it: Does a furniture business advertising in the local paper care whether the victim of a shooting is named in a piece? Sure, the owner might know the victim, but that doesn't mean the business will determine its expenditures based on names.
> Using real names isn't to "drive clicks" and "appease advertisers." It's to add credibility to a story.
If the NYT actually thinks they need to use the real name of the author of Slate Star Codex to add credibility to a story about the blog, they're delusional.
I think it's much more likely that they simply don't care about the valid personal concerns of people they write about.
Regardless, revealing someone's real name is orthogonal to clicks or ad revenue.
Why did the journalist search out the real name which is clearly difficult and then not talk to his interviewee about his name being released; because he knew it was immoral.
1 reply →
It's actually not. People in general like "good stories" and will read and share them more. Adding "credibility" will drive the perception as a "good" story and therefore to some degree clicks as well.
Depends on who's clicking and who the advertisers are.
Well, in that case, the journalists should adapt and give credibility through pseudonymity.
Which is possible through the use of other sources. But it depends on the situation. A pseudonym is appropriate for victims of sex crimes and exploitation.
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).
3 replies →
It's also appropriate in cases where the subject's real name isn't relevant to the story in any way. That's certainly true here.
1 reply →
I think the person you are responding to was trying to figure out what kerkeslager's point was, rather than stating his own conclusion. I am a bit confused myself as to what the connection is between name-publishing policies and sources of funding.
It is a pretty damn dubious measure of credibility and it has already failed when suggested for civility.
I am honestly starting to think real name policies are just about hating anominity at this point.
The idea behind a real name policy is that you open yourself up for scrutiny and criticism. Since you can be held accountable for what you say you have an incentive to say the truth or at least avoid making mistakes. The reality is that on the internet thousands of people will criticize you for any arbitrary reason even if that reason is actually a fabricated lie or just a personal bias.
If you value your privacy, don't speak to reporters and take every protection to protect your identity. This thinking goes from the basement dweller to the billionaire.
However, if your information is revealed, don't be shocked when someone approaches you with that information because you didn't cover your tracks.
We're not surprised, we're just disappointed.
> Using real names isn't to "drive clicks" and "appease advertisers." It's to add credibility to a story.
What about not revealing sources? Didn't journalists used to go to jail for that one?
Correct. Judith Miller is an example. However, her information turned out to be inaccurate. But she wasn't willing to oust her source.
Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, of Watergate fame, famously refused to reveal their FBI source, Deep Throat, for decades. Of course, they didn't go to jail.