3 ms·
Maybe journalists think that, but lots of people (including Scott and me) don't. I believe people have a right to privacy. > when he was less careful... public
by vgel 6y ago
Maybe journalists think that, but lots of people (including Scott and me) don't. I believe people have a right to privacy.
> when he was less careful... publicly outed himself
Is the NYT journalists, or hostiles? Usually needing opsec is reserved for activists and criminals hiding from oppressive governments, not bloggers who reasonably want a private life.
- ahepp 6y agoI think if you're writing a widely read, critically acclaimed, publicly available blog and feel that anonymity is crucial for your safety then yes, it would be appropriate to practice opsec. Journalists should be hostile, in the sense that they should not collude with subjects on how to present a story to the public. The crisis in journalism we see today is that there is too much collusion between subjects and journalists. There's a clear public interest in knowing the identity of a subject. Ideally there would be no journalistic discretion at all. Reveal the information, unless there's a clear, concise, and open policy rationalizing not doing so.
- vgel 6y ago> There's a clear public interest in knowing the identity of a subject. Why? He's a blogger.
- ardy42 6y ago>> IIRC, it's a pretty core journalistic principle that subjects don't get to make decisions about how their story is presented. > Maybe journalists think that, but lots of people (including Scott and me) don't. I believe people have a right to privacy. They have think that, because otherwise they'd be in the PR industry, not journalism. People do have some rights to privacy, but that doesn't extend to having a right to retroactively "take back" information they've released or editorial control over true things others may want to write about you.