It costs the NYC nothing to respect his efforts at pseudo-anonymity, as halfhearted as they were. The cause of journalism is not advanced in the slightest by p

It costs the NYC nothing to respect his efforts at pseudo-anonymity, as halfhearted as they were. The cause of journalism is not advanced in the slightest by publishing the real name. The problem with "unnamed sources" is there's no fixed point to compare against -- the unnamed source loses nothing by lying or making things up. Scott has a huge amount of reputation to lose if he lies, even if it doesn't directly tie back to his real-life persona. It would be a REALLY long con to blog for a decade to build a reputation, just to be a disreputable unnamed source in an article.