Ah, I think I have a maybe simpler way to describe my anger about this: Consider the difference between these two reported pieces of information: 1. Senator M

Ah, I think I have a maybe simpler way to describe my anger about this: Consider the difference between these two reported pieces of information: 1. Senator McSenatorface has, anonymously via a shell company, accepted donations from Boeing in a quid pro quo to adjust the regulations to require less oversight. 2. Senator McSenatorface has, anonymously, booked three holiday tickets for himself and his family at the Isolated Mountain Lodge in Canada, where he will be out of phone contact for the coming four weeks. Both are true information, that the person prefers to keep hidden, that some readers would find informative or useful, and both can be used to harm their interests. But I hope we are in agreement that one is valid and important journalism and the other is three inches away from incitement of violence. So by what criterion do we divide them? To me, the distinguishing factor is whether the information is more useful to moral or immoral action. In my opinion, revealing Scott's name is primarily of benefit to not just immoral action, but action that is near-universally acknowledged as immoral. If it has a redeeming moral justification, I don't see it.