Comment by blaser-waffle
6 years ago
> The reporter just doesn't get it.
Full-time reporters don't get why a source might not want to be named? Dude that's a high-school level journalism discussion. If you're a full-timer at the NYT you get why, and are either complying with a corporate policy or grinding a political axe.
> If you're a full-timer at the NYT you get why, and are either complying with a corporate policy or grinding a political axe.
Or you are just an asshole.
There does not seem to be a good reason to refer to him by his full name rather than Scott Alexander. But there are a lot of bad reasons.
The main way I could see using Scott’s full name as being valid is if the reporter is outing some sort of malpractice, which I do not think is the case. I struggle really to think of any other good reasons.
In this context, he's not a "source"--he's the subject of an article. Using the subject's full name is one way to prove to your readers that you're writing about who you claim you're writing about.
But it doesn't prove any such thing. He's writing about "Scott Alexander". All discussion of SSC that you will encounter will refer to "Scott Alexander". Claiming that "Scott Alexander" is really "Scott Somebodyorother" does not enhance the credibility of the article in the least. Rather the reverse, since it would make one wonder about the objectivity of the reporter if they for no reason cause massive damage to their subject, and his patients.