3 ms·

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 ano

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.

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.