3 ms·
The fact that the article whose author the NYT kept anonymous was an opinion piece makes the example more relevant to Scott Alexander's case. Scott's work was c
by leereeves 6y ago
The fact that the article whose author the NYT kept anonymous was an opinion piece makes the example more relevant to Scott Alexander's case. Scott's work was closer to opinion than news, though it was opinion grounded in rational arguments, explained in detail.
And unlike the anonymous author the NYT did protect, I don't think Scott ever misrepresented himself. All Scott asked was for the NYT to honor the importance of anonymity - something whose importance they have previously acknowledged - in his case.
- ahepp 6y agoScott Alexander wrote opinion pieces. The article that was written about him is a news article. I think I may have ninja-edited my comment as you were responding, but Scott Alexander is the subject of the article. Often sources will be granted anonymity, although even that can be controversial. That is a situation where the reporter may have to use discretion, to obtain information. Obscuring the name of the subject, at their request, when the name is easily found in their publicly released material, is a very different thing.
- leereeves 6y agoThe point of my link was that the NYT kept the author of that opinion piece anonymous. They're really stretching the definition by calling the author a "source", though I suppose he is the paper's best source for his own opinion. In Miles Taylor's case, they recognized the importance of anonymity for authors whose job would be jeopardized by disclosing their name. In Scott Alexander's case, they ignored it.