Comment by newacct583
6 years ago
That assertion seems rather at odds with "NYT Is Threatening My Safety By Revealing My Real Name", doesn't it?
Again, the idea that journalists routinely burn their sources as a matter of course is clearly wrong. Source anonymity is inviolate, especially at the level of papers like the Times. They just don't do what is being alleged here.
If they want to tell us who he is, it's because his identity IS the story.
He has fairly good reasons for caring about the distinction between “possible to discover” and “connected to the blog via the NYT”.
The story that does or doesn’t get published will tell us how central his identity is, I suppose!
Again, I'm just struck by how much credence you're giving an anonymous blogger vs. the Times here. I mean... do you have a good example of an article where the Times burned a source in a situation where the story was about something other than the source's identity?
I'll say it the last time: what is being alleged here (that the Times is "doxxing" someone for political reasons) simply Does Not Happen in real journalism. It just doesn't.
I’ve read most of what’s been written on SSC for the last several years, so I don’t exactly think of him as an anonymous blogger. And the Times is made up of people, most of whom I’m sure are very talented and conscientious, but people nonetheless.
Journalists, as people, make mistakes. I suppose I would be equally incredulous if I hadn’t read so much of what Scott has written. And I think you have a very good point about “real journalism,” which is why I’m very interested to see what happens.
He isn’t a source, he’s the subject. Your argument makes no sense.
1 reply →