NYT and the whistleblower

If the mods will permit, seems like a discussion of the New York Times publishing some information that could reveal the ID of the whistleblower seems appropriate. There's none in the main politics thread, but this is a journalism issue IMHO.

New York Times criticized for publishing details about whistleblower

And the actual story (may be behind paywall ... it is for me).
White House Knew of Whistle-Blower’s Allegations Soon After Trump’s Call With Ukraine Leader

 

Between this and the editorial page's recent bon mots, the wait time to cancel your NYT sub is 300 minutes.

 

Of all the news organizations struggling to cover Trump, the troubles at the Times are most evident.

In part because we expect so much of it.

But the editorial decision-making since Trump came down the escalator has been routinely bad.

 

So let me get this straight. Every media outlet in the world today uses "sources say" without batting an eyelash, and never revealing how many levels those people are from the facts. And actual journalists have spent time in jail or prison for not revealing their sources despite intense pressure from people who want to trod on the First Amendment.

Yet the NYT feels its their civic duty to reveal a key whistleblower inside a toxic administration -- and blow his or her cover -- because ... "nobody would believe us otherwise?"

That's like the senior editor at the Washington Post calling Nixon and telling him, "Hey, this Mark Felt guy is telling us you have a secret tape recorder in your office. Would you like to comment?"

Pardon me if I throw up in a corner at your definition of journalistic integrity. And here I thought Jeff Zucker was the biggest clown in the circus.

 

Let's be clear The Times only mentioned the whistleblower works for the CIA. The White House more than likely already knew that. People are making this out like the Times doxxed the guy, which, obviously, wasn't the case.

 

This is a terrible development by the way.

 

You canceled your sub over this? Really?

 

Is that what I said?

 

As Raven said, The Times didn't dox the whistleblower. The White House already knows where the whistleblower works, and has known for months.

 

I don't think the story put the whistleblower in any more jeopardy than before it hit, but I also don't think it advanced the story to any degree. And the very, very snotty and defensive reaction of many Times reporters on Twitter to criticism tells me 1. They have the worst collective case of rabbit ears ever. 2. Opinion in the building is very divided.

 

I think this hits at the issues with the NYT over the last 2-3 years.

It's not the content (at least, outside of the inane Bret Stephens editorials) that's necessarily the problem. It's the delivery and the reaction on social media. There's a lot of navel-gazing that goes on by NYT reporters, and they're almost all inherently defensive instead of reading the room and calmly explaining some situations.

There also seems to be a lack of communication or cohesive policy on how to play stories on the physical page, on the web site, and on social media. You get headlines that don't match the language of what reporters/social media folks tweet. That takes an audience that's already worked up and makes them more confused and agitated.

 

So did you?