4 ms·

> Before he went to Substack, he took down his blog because of a NY Times hit piece... That's a distortion. He took down is blog because the NYT journalist pla

> Before he went to Substack, he took down his blog because of a NY Times hit piece... That's a distortion. He took down is blog because the NYT journalist planned to use his real name, which is their typical practice. They didn't even have to break confidence to find it out, because he had publicly made the link in published work. This was also before he (or anyone else) saw the article. He and his fans seem to be under the false impression that their extremely-online internet-forum mores apply to all of society, and were outraged. It's also an exaggeration to call the article a "hit piece." It wasn't glowing fluff, and that's all. I don't think he and his fans would have been satisfied with anything except an uncritical report of how they see and understand themselves.

fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
The Nytimes sometimes publishes pieces about people with pseudonyms where they don’t reveal the real name: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_anonymous_publications https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_anonymous... No reporter is forced to out someone by “typical practice”, it’s a deliberate action. Revealing Scott’s identity only added heat to the story, not light.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > The Nytimes sometimes publishes pieces about people with pseudonyms where they don’t reveal the real name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_anonymous_publications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_anonymous_p... That's a list of seven things, over a time period spanning 50 years. More than half appear to be cases where the person or their family were in legitimate physical danger. In all listed cases, it's the author's identity that was kept secret, not the subject of an article. > No reporter is forced to out someone by “typical practice”, it’s a deliberate action. In cases like Scott Alexander's, they're not compelled to hide anyone's identity either. > Revealing Scott’s identity only added heat to the story, not light. Maybe in the mind of his fans, but obviously not in the reporter's view. And frankly, all the "heat" came from Alexander's reaction and that of his fans.

fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago

The Nytimes sometimes publishes pieces about people with pseudonyms where they don’t reveal the real name: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_anonymous_publications https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_anonymous... No reporter is forced to out someone by “typical practice”, it’s a deliberate action. Revealing Scott’s identity only added heat to the story, not light.

tablespoon 4y ago
> The Nytimes sometimes publishes pieces about people with pseudonyms where they don’t reveal the real name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_anonymous_publications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_anonymous_p... That's a list of seven things, over a time period spanning 50 years. More than half appear to be cases where the person or their family were in legitimate physical danger. In all listed cases, it's the author's identity that was kept secret, not the subject of an article. > No reporter is forced to out someone by “typical practice”, it’s a deliberate action. In cases like Scott Alexander's, they're not compelled to hide anyone's identity either. > Revealing Scott’s identity only added heat to the story, not light. Maybe in the mind of his fans, but obviously not in the reporter's view. And frankly, all the "heat" came from Alexander's reaction and that of his fans.