Comment by ksdale
6 years ago
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.
First, there is no difference in the context of journalistic ethics. If you promise someone anonymity then you keep that promise. They don't do what is being alleged.
Second: you don't actually know that. All we have is what Scott tells us he understood the reporter to have represented as the subject of the story. Reporters don't break promises of anonymity, but they routinely lie to sources if they think it will get them to disclose facts worth reporting.
All I'm saying here is that if this is escalating to a "shut it all down" level, there's pretty clearly more afoot here than a mere unmasking.