> In a written statement to Insider, [...] Johnson said that he was exposing Thiel's work as a CHS as retribution [...]
They actually wrote "retribution". Sounds like an additional hint that outing might not be OK.
Can a seasoned journalist say what the professional guidelines are here?
Best guess is they see the harm as minor as 1. It is not revealed who Thiel was informing on and 2. To the extent a target could guess, Thiel is very well equipped to protect himself from physical threats. Further, it doesn’t seem Johnson is implying physical retribution, it seems more like (arguably) he’s trying to expose what he sees as some sort of ideological hypocrisy. So any harm would be reputational (and debatable) if that’s the case.
Many sources for news articles act out of self interest, whether to benefit themselves or hurt an enemy, so that would not be inherently disqualifying.
(Not endorsing the presumed logic just describing it.)
> They actually wrote "retribution". Sounds like an additional hint that outing might not be OK.
Charles C. Johnson has a very colorful history. Rep. Matt Gaetz (also in the news lately) invited him to the State of the Union in 2018 after which multiple outlets reported on Johnson's Holocaust denier past and his other activities.[0][1]
In my opinion, I wouldn't trust Johnson or let him know any real secrets – damaging or not – about me. I'm a bit surprised Thiel would trust him – seems like a blunder that he typically doesn't make.
The rest of the article is a hit piece with a bunch of guilt-by-association attacks against Thiel, but Johnson is curiously spared from having his past brought up.
[0] https://floridaphoenix.com/blog/matt-gaetz-once-again-hangs-...
[1]https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2018/02/09/spurned...