4 ms·

To me the childish party seems to be Scott Siskind. If ethical concerns were real, he could just not write about his patients. If he didn't want to be news wort

by mola 6y ago

To me the childish party seems to be Scott Siskind. If ethical concerns were real, he could just not write about his patients. If he didn't want to be news worthy, he didn't have to try and become a successful blogger. He decided to be part of public discourse. But he wants it strictly on his terms, well, that's childish...

leereeves 6y ago
The NYT themselves recognize the importance of anonymity. They don't consider it childish: > “We take seriously our obligations to protect sources,” Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha said. “Many important stories in sensitive areas like politics, national security and business could never be reported if our journalists violated that trust.” [1] And to be clear, though she said "source", that comment was about the author of an anonymous op-ed published in the NYT. Why does anonymity for authors cease to be important if people bypass the NYT and communicate with the public directly? 1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/anonymous-miles-taylor-new-york-times-senior-official/2020/10/28/73634c0a-1959-11eb-82db-60b15c874105_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/anonymous-mil... Edit to clarify once again: This example is the NYT protecting the author of an anonymous op-ed. If sharing an opinion makes someone a source, isn't everyone a source? Or does it only count, and become worthy of protection, if published in the NYT, not on one's own blog?
- cavisne 6y ago
  In that case they used anonymity to suit them (increase the importance of a person who ended up being way lower ranked then was in implied). Anonymity is a weapon of MSM, they use it to write poorly sourced stories saying whatever they want, and remove it to hurt people they don’t like.
- mola 6y ago
  He is not a source, he is the subject of the piece. Source anonimity is important because otherwise sources in delicate situations will never talk to the press. This has nothing to do with the issue here and I don't understand why would you see it otherwise.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mola 6y ago
  Of course, if he published by himself, and his name in publicly known, then yes, nyt has no obligation for source unannonimity. The fact that the anonymous source that published an editorial is a very different case. The anonymous source didn't publish his writings in a personal blog, he would not have publish the op-ed under his name. So the only way to get that op-ed to be published is by ensuring anonymity. These cases are not related in the slightest.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    At the very least, their statement shows that they recognize the harm that revealing someone's identity can cause. It also acknowledges that "many important stories in sensitive areas like politics, national security and business could never be" discussed without anonymity. Whether that discussion happens on the NYT or not is, IMO, irrelevant. I realize blogs are a threat to their business model, but that doesn't excuse targeting their authors.
parsimo2010 6y ago
He doesn’t write much about his patients, and never in a personally identifying way. He wished to stay anonymous to prevent any of his patients reading his blog (while knowing it was him) and feeling like they were forming a personal connection with him, which would interfere with their care. Given that the NYT wasn’t unmasking some villain, I think they are the ones in the wrong. If you can’t write a good article without using a person’s real name, then it’s probably not a good article with the real name either. Should we start writing articles about all the movie stars that use different names?
- mola 6y ago
  No one forced him to write about patients in a public blog nor write a public blog, he is a grown-up and he made that choice. He made efforts to be a public persona, but he can't grasp the fact that once he is a public persona, he cannot choose to be private regarding that public persona. It's not like the piece went and delved in to his personal life unrelated to his writings. They just said he is writing that blog. This is well within ethical journalism standards. The whole drama around it is a result of Scott rallying his followers to feel as if he has been done some wrong. You lose your privacy the moment you do things in public. We should definitely have the right to keep certain things private but not the thing we make public. Expecting otherwise is a very childish expectation. (Childish as in: the world revolves around you, and you get to decide the rules)
  - vinay427 6y ago
    > No one forced him to write about patients in a public blog nor write a public blog, he is a grown-up and he made that choice. I'm not sure how this addresses the first paragraph of the parent comment. Their point was that he didn't do much of this, and it wasn't the problem Scott raised which was (paraphrasing the comment) about patients developing a personal relationship with him through his ideas expressed on the blog.
    - mola 6y ago
      So why write a blog if this is a problem. If he is a psychiatrist and considers this an issue, he shouldn't have chosen to become a public persona. But, that is exactly what he chose to do. He himself says that his blog is only psuedo anonymous and it's easy to find out who he is. So it's a risk he knowingly took, the fact that his name is known is on him, not NYT.

by mola 6y ago

leereeves 6y ago

The NYT themselves recognize the importance of anonymity. They don't consider it childish: > “We take seriously our obligations to protect sources,” Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha said. “Many important stories in sensitive areas like politics, national security and business could never be reported if our journalists violated that trust.” [1] And to be clear, though she said "source", that comment was about the author of an anonymous op-ed published in the NYT. Why does anonymity for authors cease to be important if people bypass the NYT and communicate with the public directly? 1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/anonymous-miles-taylor-new-york-times-senior-official/2020/10/28/73634c0a-1959-11eb-82db-60b15c874105_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/anonymous-mil... Edit to clarify once again: This example is the NYT protecting the author of an anonymous op-ed. If sharing an opinion makes someone a source, isn't everyone a source? Or does it only count, and become worthy of protection, if published in the NYT, not on one's own blog?

cavisne 6y ago
In that case they used anonymity to suit them (increase the importance of a person who ended up being way lower ranked then was in implied). Anonymity is a weapon of MSM, they use it to write poorly sourced stories saying whatever they want, and remove it to hurt people they don’t like.
mola 6y ago
He is not a source, he is the subject of the piece. Source anonimity is important because otherwise sources in delicate situations will never talk to the press. This has nothing to do with the issue here and I don't understand why would you see it otherwise.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mola 6y ago
Of course, if he published by himself, and his name in publicly known, then yes, nyt has no obligation for source unannonimity. The fact that the anonymous source that published an editorial is a very different case. The anonymous source didn't publish his writings in a personal blog, he would not have publish the op-ed under his name. So the only way to get that op-ed to be published is by ensuring anonymity. These cases are not related in the slightest.
- leereeves 6y ago
  At the very least, their statement shows that they recognize the harm that revealing someone's identity can cause. It also acknowledges that "many important stories in sensitive areas like politics, national security and business could never be" discussed without anonymity. Whether that discussion happens on the NYT or not is, IMO, irrelevant. I realize blogs are a threat to their business model, but that doesn't excuse targeting their authors.

parsimo2010 6y ago

He doesn’t write much about his patients, and never in a personally identifying way. He wished to stay anonymous to prevent any of his patients reading his blog (while knowing it was him) and feeling like they were forming a personal connection with him, which would interfere with their care. Given that the NYT wasn’t unmasking some villain, I think they are the ones in the wrong. If you can’t write a good article without using a person’s real name, then it’s probably not a good article with the real name either. Should we start writing articles about all the movie stars that use different names?

mola 6y ago
No one forced him to write about patients in a public blog nor write a public blog, he is a grown-up and he made that choice. He made efforts to be a public persona, but he can't grasp the fact that once he is a public persona, he cannot choose to be private regarding that public persona. It's not like the piece went and delved in to his personal life unrelated to his writings. They just said he is writing that blog. This is well within ethical journalism standards. The whole drama around it is a result of Scott rallying his followers to feel as if he has been done some wrong. You lose your privacy the moment you do things in public. We should definitely have the right to keep certain things private but not the thing we make public. Expecting otherwise is a very childish expectation. (Childish as in: the world revolves around you, and you get to decide the rules)
- vinay427 6y ago
  > No one forced him to write about patients in a public blog nor write a public blog, he is a grown-up and he made that choice. I'm not sure how this addresses the first paragraph of the parent comment. Their point was that he didn't do much of this, and it wasn't the problem Scott raised which was (paraphrasing the comment) about patients developing a personal relationship with him through his ideas expressed on the blog.
  - mola 6y ago
    So why write a blog if this is a problem. If he is a psychiatrist and considers this an issue, he shouldn't have chosen to become a public persona. But, that is exactly what he chose to do. He himself says that his blog is only psuedo anonymous and it's easy to find out who he is. So it's a risk he knowingly took, the fact that his name is known is on him, not NYT.