Comment by 7402
6 years ago
What is an appropriate theory of when a journalist should reveal the name of someone who doesn't want that name revealed?
Some simplistic possibilities:
1. Never.
2. Always.
3. Don't, if they're a 'good' person. Do, if they're a 'bad' person.
My theory is that it's a sliding scale, depending on one's judgement of the following:
Where does this person fit on the public/private scale? The more public a person, the less right to privacy.
How influential is this person? The more influential, the less right to privacy.
How much of what brought them into public interest was of their own choice?
What threats might the person come under if the name is revealed. The greater the threat, the more right to privacy. Also, are these threats physical, economic, or social?
How sophisticated is the person? Do they know what reporters do for a living? Do they understand the conventions of "off the record" and "pre-interview negotiations"?
I'd like to see more discussion of this and less of "cancel my subscription."
As others have noted, NYTimes had dozens of articles about Banksy, whose identity has been known by many and could easily be discovered by the NYTimes (if they don't already know it - I suspect they do).
By any possible scale, Scott's real identity deserves less publicity than Banksy's.
The "cancel my subscription" wave is well warranted, because that's the only vote people have with the NYTimes.
How much does it add to reveal the name?
If it's about a blog and its content, I don't see what is won by adding the name of the author if they don't agree. Quite the opposite literally in this case.