3 ms·

The NYT themselves recognize the importance of anonymity. They don't consider it childish: > “We take seriously our obligations to protect sources,” Times spok

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.

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.