Comment by CM30 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by CM30 | Hacker News Reader

I still can't figure out any legitimate reason why the Times thought it was a good idea to try and use his real name in an article about the site.

I mean, if someone goes by a certain identity online when running a blog or working on something, what's wrong with just using that name in an article or video about them? Whenever I interview a game developer that uses a pseudonym, or a YouTuber/Twitch streamer/blogger in the same situation, that's the name I use in the article. I might ask them for a bit of background info at one point sure, but I won't push for it, nor will I go around trying to dox them to get said information.

Is there any real reason that 'Scott Alexander [last name]' would be used rather than just 'Scott Alexander'?

Still, it's nice to see the blog's back up, and I hope people learn from this debacle in some way or another.

This is pure speculation on my part, but it may just be due to organizational inflexibility and poor communication. I remember reading somewhere that internally The Times said it was having a credibility problem when it came to "unnamed sources" and there was an effort to confront this.

So, the author of the article, knowing Scott's real and full name, would be obliged to use it in the article. I can imagine Scott's request to protect his identity going back and forth between layers of management. And each of those managers realized they had nothing to gain by granting Scott's request.

There's a huge difference between pure "unnamed sources" that are highly partisan and publishing the pseudonym someone publishes under rather than their actual name.

Also, most of the credibility loss has been because a lot of those anonymous sources flat-out lied to them, but that's another story and I have yet to see them write about it.

scott wasn’t an unnamed source; from the sound of it this was in large part an article about him, eg the journo was going around and asking questions about him specifically. i guess we’ll see if those sources are named.

There are different types of reporting, specifically there's a difference between reporting a story and running a profile.

If your piece is about morale within the state department, an unnamed source who works there could be acceptable. If your piece is "here is this interesting person who runs this community" then identifying who the person actually is seems defensible.

http://egmncorp.com/student-journalist-toolbox/how-to-write-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com