Actually, I think you missed the point of the article. The overall point Jeremy is making is that: Propublica claims to be independent and non-partisan trying

Actually, I think you missed the point of the article. The overall point Jeremy is making is that: Propublica claims to be independent and non-partisan trying to do investigative journalism to the highest standards. However, here they are really publishing a thinly veiled policy op-ed, and a pretty badly informed one at that. IE not investigative journalism. They are further morally justifying the privacy invasion on some really shaky grounds as well. Like, for example, even if one assumes that their story is somehow "investigative journalism" rather than "policy op ed", there is no obvious reason not to anonymize the data except to make it more salacious and get more clicks. They basically write that as their justification, along with some other "ends justify the means" crap, but try to make it sound better. That is not an ethical or moral reason to do something. You may agree or disagree, but this feels like a very valid set of points to raise, and doesn't "miss the point" at all. It is propublica that is claiming to hold themselves to a high standard and failing in a lot of ways. So this is overall a critique/commentary on the standards folks are holding themselves to much more than "are they right". The "are they right about tax" is almost secondary here, and that is what you (and lots of others) are focusing on. Which is ironic, because it basically proves