It was the conditions of reserved the right to de-anonymize them if circumstances warranted that made CNN look bad.
Basically, they investigated and then showed gasp discretion. Yet, people somehow think they did something wrong?
The issue is the implication, that if the guy had not apologized they would then do something. Instead of only doing something if the guy started sending death threats or something.
The problem is it seems they used their journalistic position to blackmail someone into a particular course of action, and they are using the threat of future blackmail/doxxing to enforce continued compliance from that person.
IMHO, it's journalists' job to report newsworthy facts to the public. It's unethical for them to either hide or reveal facts based on other agendas, which include such small agendas as getting a particular reddit jerk to be a bit more circumspect.
> The issue is the implication, that if the guy had not apologized they would then do something. Instead of only doing something if the guy started sending death threats or something.
Was the creator of the gif actually sending death threats and the like, or is that something you made up?
Now, if CNN actually threatened the guy that's not ok. But, this comes down to what you assumed might have happened, not something that we know actually happened. Another possibility is they called the guy up for a story and he was instantly apologetic on his own initiative.
> Was the creator of the gif actually..
I said "if the guy started" as I assumed he had not done so.
I am simply saying treating such things as potentially serous signs of another possible newsroom shooting in the making is understandable. Not because of his actions are unreasonable, rather because of crazy people also doing similar things in the past. Organizations of this size are already paying people to do this stuff, the guy happened to hit the radar enough that he was next on the list.