NYT vs. Slate Star Codex

Slate Star Codex is a blog written by an anonymous psychiatrist who goes by Scott Alexander.

Alexander writes about a variety of topics, some of which has not been received well from readers and has led to death threats.

On Tuesday, Alexander hid his entire blog with a solo post[1].

The TL;DR is the NYT is writing a story about his blog. The reporter found out the blogger's identity and, according to Alexander, is planning to publish his real name because it's "NYT policy."

Many people on Twitter, Hacker News, and other forums have blown up over the ordeal, saying the NYT publishing Alexander's real name puts his life in danger and is "threatening to dox" him.

I've been following this story all day, and I'm curious to you hear all your thoughts on situation. There are too many people making an outcry who don't know how reporting -- or journalism for that matter -- works. And it's bee incredibly frustrating to keep brainlets informed. Keep in mind, as of Tuesday night, the story has not been published.

My opinion: The situation is complicated. The blog isn't a household name, so Alexander can claim the "private citizen" card. The blog seems to be the center of the story because, according to Alexander, it was quick to report on the coronavirus. However, if the NYT found his real name, then what's the stop other people from doing the same? If the guy was concerned about protecting his identity, he should've done more to shield it. The fact he's shutting everyone down because he's about to be exposed seems like a pearl clutching that makes me roll my eyes.

If I had to choose, I would try to come up with a compromise. Obviously, I'm against putting people at risk, but there has to be a little leeway. Perhaps not using the blogger's real name but include other identifying features, such as his age, location and how long he has been a practicing psychiatrist could work. Additionally, putting, at the very top of the story, why the Time is using his pseudonym: "The Time has identified Alexander but is choosing not to disclose his real name to due his safety." Or something to that effect. Finally, there would need to be a hell of a lot of on-the-record sources, most of whom should be as close to Alexander as possible, who can verify his work and add some meat to the story.

[1]: NYT Is Threatening My Safety By Revealing My Real Name, So I Am Deleting The Blog

 

It sure didn't take long for people to figure out who the reporter is. They've been letting him have it on Twitter since yesterday.

 

It's so hard to just say one way or the other. What is the motivation for this story? What is it about? That's one prong. Second, is there an overriding public concern that this person be made public? And is writing a blog reason enough to reveal this person?

 

"We're right, they're wrong."
Exposing someone, because they can.
No, no overriding public concern.
Nope.

Has the NYT publicly identified "Anonymous" and exposed him/her since the 2018 "resistance" op-ed? If the newsroom hates the op-ed people so much (as recently shown with the toddler shit-fit about the Cotton lunacy) then it's nothing more than straight hypocracy and advocacy to claim "our policy!" about one person they're exposing but not do it with others. Nothing new for the NYT, though.