4 ms·

This is pure speculation on my part, but it may just be due to organizational inflexibility and poor communication. I remember reading somewhere that internally

This is pure speculation on my part, but it may just be due to organizational inflexibility and poor communication. I remember reading somewhere that internally The Times said it was having a credibility problem when it came to "unnamed sources" and there was an effort to confront this. So, the author of the article, knowing Scott's real and full name, would be obliged to use it in the article. I can imagine Scott's request to protect his identity going back and forth between layers of management. And each of those managers realized they had nothing to gain by granting Scott's request.

Natsu 6y ago
There's a huge difference between pure "unnamed sources" that are highly partisan and publishing the pseudonym someone publishes under rather than their actual name. Also, most of the credibility loss has been because a lot of those anonymous sources flat-out lied to them, but that's another story and I have yet to see them write about it.
nyolfen 6y ago
scott wasn’t an unnamed source; from the sound of it this was in large part an article about him, eg the journo was going around and asking questions about him specifically. i guess we’ll see if those sources are named.