7 ms·

I think that they have already thought hard about the second order effects of publishing full names and this is the conclusion they have come to for all article

I think that they have already thought hard about the second order effects of publishing full names and this is the conclusion they have come to for all articles. If I go to any NY Times article there are always full names attached. There is an article on a sex podcaster on the front-page now. She goes by her full name - but let's see she had asked just to go by her first name and also asked the NY Times not to report what medical/therapy qualification she did or did not have. In doing so, she could claim, it would jeopardize people she went to college with finding her talk about sex online on the podcast she publishes herself and spends time promoting. Should the NY Times honor that? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/style/emily-morse-masterclass-instagram-podcast.html?action=click&module=Editors%20Picks&pgtype=Homepage https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/style/emily-morse-masterc...

remarkEon 6y ago
In certain contexts, news orgs will publish full names when it's in the public interest. Very often, the subject or source in a story will request to remain anonymous and they typically honor this unless, again, there is a compelling public interest in not doing so. Subject to your example, it's really, really hard to understand why NYT wouldn't honor Alexander's request here since a) if you really wanted to you could find his full name online and b) they didn't use the same standard when reporting on Chapo Trap House (for just one example) [1], which has much more influence (and revenue generating activity) than SSC ever did. The reason the article you linked is quite different is, well, whoever that person is was explicitly trying to increase their profile via an interview with the NYT. It's already a literal puff piece. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/us/politics/bernie-sanders-chapo-trap-house.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/us/politics/bernie-sander... >The Chapo co-host Virgil Texas (he lives and works under that pseudonym) went to a nearby bar for a beer...
- ahepp 6y ago
  I'd like to see a reference for the claim that very often, the subject in a news story will be granted anonymity (besides victims of sex crimes) The Virgil stuff is a moot point. There are several differences (difficulty of finding the name, consistent usage rather than anonymizing), but I don't see how it would change anything if they slipped up by letting him use a pseudonym. Unless you really do have evidence that they very often allow subjects anonymity?
  - handmodel 6y ago
    IMO from that example it seems hypocritical but I don't think that means they would have been wrong to use the real name of Virgil Texas. It would have been a totally acceptable and informative thing for a newspaper of record to print his real name - just as I think it is totally acceptable and informative to publish the real name of SSC. This is a newspaper. Providing information to the public. Their obligation is to their readers to provide valuable reported information.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Unless you really do have evidence that they very often allow subjects anonymity? Like any American news firm, they regularly "allow" anonymity in "national security" pieces. Some will argue that this anonymity is for "sources" rather than "subjects", but invariably those groups are the same. Deep-state and MIC reptiles talk their own books, using these media firms as sock-puppets. Without anonymity the whole exercise would be obviously pointless. With anonymity they're able to stoke lots of fear of brown people.
ALittleLight 6y ago
Here's an article they wrote about the rapper Kendrick Lamar Duckworth. You may notice they leave off his last name. There are many examples of the NYT doing this, using the names people are popularly known by rather than their real ones. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/arts/music/kendrick-lamar-pulitzer-prize-damn.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/arts/music/kendrick-lamar...
- handmodel 6y ago
  That's fine - but I 100% think the NYT should be allowed to write a article about Kendrick Lamar Duckworth tomorrow where they use his full name - even if he asked them not to. It isn't his decision. Do you think the NYT would be wrong to publish his last name just because he asked them not to use it? SSC yelling "I am not a public figure" has no meaning. He doesn't get to decide if he is a public figure or not. And it doesn't make any sense for public figures to be the arbiters of what facets of their life is public and which are not. He has a blog with hundreds-of-thousands of readers. I think that makes him a public figure. This probably comes up all the time (at least in the not-to-distant-past) with actors and actresses not wanting their real age reported. They could claim a right to privacy or say that while they are an artist - they aren't a public figure - but it isn't there right to make up the rules for public figure. The news media has an obligation to its readers to report and the concerns of the subject aren't the newspaper's job to worry about.
  - ALittleLight 6y ago
    I want to notice a small change in the goalposts. In your previous comment you wrote "If I go to any NY Times article there are always full names attached" and now we seem to be discussing whether the NYT has the right to publish full names against the wishes of the named person. It's an important shift because we're acknowledging the NYT makes this choice and chose to use Scott's full name over his objection, not because of any policy, but just because they wanted to. If Kendrick Lamar said "It would be better for my image if I was written about using my first and middle name and without my last name" because that's more consistent or he thinks "Duckworth" doesn't conjure the image of a rapper - then I'd say that the NYT should respect that. His concerns make sense and he's much more widely known by Kendrick Lamar than by Duckworth. There's no reason to include his last name, you don't know more or less about him by knowing it or not. It's a balancing act between no benefit on one side and some harm on the other. Seems clear what to do. I think the NYT has a legal right to publish full names if they want but I think it's a moral flaw that they do so. Same way, maybe it would be legal for you to walk up to a little girl and tell her she's ugly. That's not a crime, but it says something negative about you. You're doing harm for no reason or benefit.

remarkEon 6y ago

In certain contexts, news orgs will publish full names when it's in the public interest. Very often, the subject or source in a story will request to remain anonymous and they typically honor this unless, again, there is a compelling public interest in not doing so. Subject to your example, it's really, really hard to understand why NYT wouldn't honor Alexander's request here since a) if you really wanted to you could find his full name online and b) they didn't use the same standard when reporting on Chapo Trap House (for just one example) [1], which has much more influence (and revenue generating activity) than SSC ever did. The reason the article you linked is quite different is, well, whoever that person is was explicitly trying to increase their profile via an interview with the NYT. It's already a literal puff piece. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/us/politics/bernie-sanders-chapo-trap-house.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/us/politics/bernie-sander... >The Chapo co-host Virgil Texas (he lives and works under that pseudonym) went to a nearby bar for a beer...

ahepp 6y ago
I'd like to see a reference for the claim that very often, the subject in a news story will be granted anonymity (besides victims of sex crimes) The Virgil stuff is a moot point. There are several differences (difficulty of finding the name, consistent usage rather than anonymizing), but I don't see how it would change anything if they slipped up by letting him use a pseudonym. Unless you really do have evidence that they very often allow subjects anonymity?
- handmodel 6y ago
  IMO from that example it seems hypocritical but I don't think that means they would have been wrong to use the real name of Virgil Texas. It would have been a totally acceptable and informative thing for a newspaper of record to print his real name - just as I think it is totally acceptable and informative to publish the real name of SSC. This is a newspaper. Providing information to the public. Their obligation is to their readers to provide valuable reported information.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Unless you really do have evidence that they very often allow subjects anonymity? Like any American news firm, they regularly "allow" anonymity in "national security" pieces. Some will argue that this anonymity is for "sources" rather than "subjects", but invariably those groups are the same. Deep-state and MIC reptiles talk their own books, using these media firms as sock-puppets. Without anonymity the whole exercise would be obviously pointless. With anonymity they're able to stoke lots of fear of brown people.

ALittleLight 6y ago

Here's an article they wrote about the rapper Kendrick Lamar Duckworth. You may notice they leave off his last name. There are many examples of the NYT doing this, using the names people are popularly known by rather than their real ones. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/arts/music/kendrick-lamar-pulitzer-prize-damn.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/arts/music/kendrick-lamar...

handmodel 6y ago
That's fine - but I 100% think the NYT should be allowed to write a article about Kendrick Lamar Duckworth tomorrow where they use his full name - even if he asked them not to. It isn't his decision. Do you think the NYT would be wrong to publish his last name just because he asked them not to use it? SSC yelling "I am not a public figure" has no meaning. He doesn't get to decide if he is a public figure or not. And it doesn't make any sense for public figures to be the arbiters of what facets of their life is public and which are not. He has a blog with hundreds-of-thousands of readers. I think that makes him a public figure. This probably comes up all the time (at least in the not-to-distant-past) with actors and actresses not wanting their real age reported. They could claim a right to privacy or say that while they are an artist - they aren't a public figure - but it isn't there right to make up the rules for public figure. The news media has an obligation to its readers to report and the concerns of the subject aren't the newspaper's job to worry about.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  I want to notice a small change in the goalposts. In your previous comment you wrote "If I go to any NY Times article there are always full names attached" and now we seem to be discussing whether the NYT has the right to publish full names against the wishes of the named person. It's an important shift because we're acknowledging the NYT makes this choice and chose to use Scott's full name over his objection, not because of any policy, but just because they wanted to. If Kendrick Lamar said "It would be better for my image if I was written about using my first and middle name and without my last name" because that's more consistent or he thinks "Duckworth" doesn't conjure the image of a rapper - then I'd say that the NYT should respect that. His concerns make sense and he's much more widely known by Kendrick Lamar than by Duckworth. There's no reason to include his last name, you don't know more or less about him by knowing it or not. It's a balancing act between no benefit on one side and some harm on the other. Seems clear what to do. I think the NYT has a legal right to publish full names if they want but I think it's a moral flaw that they do so. Same way, maybe it would be legal for you to walk up to a little girl and tell her she's ugly. That's not a crime, but it says something negative about you. You're doing harm for no reason or benefit.