3 ms·
The identity of a subject is perhaps the single most important piece of information possible to contain in a news article. It certainly shouldn't be left out wh
by ahepp 6y ago
The identity of a subject is perhaps the single most important piece of information possible to contain in a news article. It certainly shouldn't be left out when known, merely because the subject prefers it not be stated.
If there's a clear, consistent, and disclosed reason for not revealing the subject's identity, that's one thing. But you're suggesting journalists, or worse subjects themselves, should decide whether their identity has journalistic value?
Furthermore, I disagree with characterizing the use of one's real name as a "slip up". It seems like pretty clear evidence that the author did not seriously care about their anonymity.
- free_rms 6y agoWhy is Scott Alexander's real name important in this specific case? I'm not interested in sloppily applied generalities for the common case where people aren't a pseudonymously semi-famous writer. Give me some reasoning on this case.
- mindslight 6y ago"Identity" is a loaded term. On the Internet, what he's notable for and what NYTimes was reporting on, his identity is Scott Alexander. Talk about Scott Alexander I'll know who you mean. If you had dropped a reference to "Scott Siskind" any time before today, I wouldn't have. Taken to the extreme, "identity" in your comment might as well apply to his driver's license number. The NYT could print that, causing him additional hassle for just as much of an addition to the story.