6 ms·
Journalists routinely protect people's identities when they think outing them could threaten their safety in some way. They do this regardless of whether a dedi
by NovaJehovah 6y ago
Journalists routinely protect people's identities when they think outing them could threaten their safety in some way. They do this regardless of whether a dedicated investigator might be able to piece together someone's identity from existing public information.
It's not a requirement to offer this protection, but declining when it's asked for by the subject of a story is certainly a weighty ethical decision that respectable journalists don't take lightly.
Outing someone in a vulnerable position simply because the journalist disagrees with their ideas and wants to harm them (vs. deciding it's in the public interest) would be a very clear breach of ethics.
- tptacek 6y agoIf the NYT went digging and found a friend of Alexander's who revealed his name, this would have maybe some weight (but probably not: journalists write stories about people who would prefer, for economic reasons, not to be identified all of the time; that is often the point), but in this case, all they did was Google. I'm sorry, I still can't see the real-world rule that requires the New York Times to pretend that you can't just Google a pseudonym to unmask it.
- NovaJehovah 6y agoThey don't have to pretend that. But they also don't have to include someone's name when it's not pertinent to the story and could conceivably cause the person harm. It doesn't matter if someone could just Google it. The NYT shouldn't make it easier unless there's journalistic value in doing so. Spite doesn't count. Would you feel the same if this was a story about a sexual assault victim instead of a blogger?
- tptacek 6y agoScott Alexander is not a victim of sexual assault; he's the author of a blog that he would rather not have connected to his name. The norms about sexual assault victims in journalism are specific (and they're contentious! Google CJR for examples) and you can't generalize from them.
- NovaJehovah 6y agoIn other words: no, you wouldn't feel the same. He's a blogger, not an assault victim, but his concerns are similar. Avoiding harassment and physical violence against himself and his family. Avoiding negative consequences on his career. Why are his concerns less valid than anyone else's? "Because I disagree with him" or "because he talks about ideas I don't think should have a platform" aren't good answers. There's no allegation he hurt anyone, did anything illegal, abused his influence, or acted in bad faith. So what's the journalistic purpose of exposing him?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ahepp 6y agoSince we're making absurd comparisons, what about violentacrez, who moderated a subreddit devoted to creepshots of underage girls? Should his identity have been withheld because it would hurt his career, or he might be harassed?
- lliamander 6y agoAre you really incapable of seeing the distinction between being able to find a real name from the pseudonym, and being able to find the pseudonym from the real name?
- pseudalopex 6y agoBoth were possible already. People in the rationalist community discussed his pseudonymous writing using his real name.
- lliamander 6y agoPossible, yes. But not equally easy. It's not like he was trying to hide from the NSA or anything. The goal was "I don't want my patients to see my blog on the first page of Google results when they search for my real name". The NYT completely obliterated that. Additionally, the fact that the NYT chose to smear him means that now many potential patients may google his name, see the hit piece and nothing else, and decide "yikes, better not go there".
- pseudalopex 6y agoThe first page of Google results had pages that linked to his blog. And I think patients would be more likely to click on pages containing his name than an obscurely named blog. The article wasn't flattering. It wasn't a smear or a hit piece.