catacombs

I mentioned this in another reply, but do you honestly think an obscure blog as SSC is a genuine threat to the NYT?

> Journalists shouldn't print anonymous articles. Journalists should use anonymous sources as little as possible.

Correct. But there are times when anonymous sources are necessary. Look at WaPo and NYT's political coverage. They use many political insiders who can't go on the record but reveal necessary information for the public.

One example: Trump's "shit hole countries" comment. That came from anonymous sources who were in the room, backed up with a few on-the-record commends from outsiders.

Correct. Judith Miller is an example. However, her information turned out to be inaccurate. But she wasn't willing to oust her source.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, of Watergate fame, famously refused to reveal their FBI source, Deep Throat, for decades. Of course, they didn't go to jail.

> The NYT is knowingly attacking his livelyhood and person by exposing him in this way.

You have no evidence to back up this claim.

Yes, the fact SSC was fast to publish information about the coronavirus than other organizations. But, do you really think the NYT, a behemoth in the media world, considers an obscure blog -- to many -- a threat?

> Breaking trust, going against wished how people prefer to be addressed and endangering people for now good reason - well, it's at most style of irresponsible, tabloid-level journalism.

Did you read SSC's post? SSC didn't mention anything of a "promise" or "agreement" for the reporter to not use his name. The reporter found it another way.

Now, if SSC explicitly said the reporter promised not to use his name, then that opens a new can of worms.

That's how stories are written. Short, succinct and informative enough to give the readers what they need for the day. Now, there are times when reporters work on "enterprise" pieces that dives fairly deep into a particular topic. Many national papers have investigative teams that churn out one or two stories A YEAR, but they are dense thorough. Perhaps that what you might enjoy reading.

How many newspapers would you realistic subscribe to? If you're reading the NYT, LAT, WAPO, WSJ, FT, then yes, the subscriptions add up.

Reporters will try to get the person on record, but in the end, it's up to the source.

If he or she agrees to go on record, they should understand the potential risks.

It would behoove the reporter to lay out the options. Tricking someone to say something without knowing whether he or she is on the record is a big no-no.

> what does knowing his real name add or let a journalist verify? Does it somehow let you verify that he does in fact blog at SSC...?

Correct. Anyone, whether it's an individual or group of people, can be "Scott Alexander."

What does it add? It makes the story more credible under scrutiny.

> I hope that the journalist gets revealed and fired.

Not going to happen. The reporter was doing his job. No one will lose their job just because your favorite blogger agreed to go on the record for an interview and is not upset that his identity will be revealed.

> Then he simply asked, "Did they get it right?" Everyone shook their head. Everyone laughed, and he moved on.

A good follow up would be "How?"

The coverage might have been factually correct, but just because they didn't like it doesn't mean the information was wrong.

This is open to abuse for people, particularly companies, who have an axe to grind and will flood the "index."

This is a bad idea.

I'd like to know how you would explain a complicated topic to the average reader, all keeping it between 600-700 words, on a tight deadline, with quotes from a variety of people, and engaging enough to hold a reader's attention to know how this particular topic will impact their lives.

These are the hurdles reporters face when reporting on complicated topics.

How do you stay informed?

How about buying a subscription to not just NYT or other national outlets, but local news organizations so the people reporting on these issues can keep the lights on.

> The implication being that the NYT wants to use real names to drive clicks and appease advertisers?

This shows a lack of how journalism works. Using real names isn't to "drive clicks" and "appease advertisers." It's to add credibility to a story.

Think about it: Does a furniture business advertising in the local paper care whether the victim of a shooting is named in a piece? Sure, the owner might know the victim, but that doesn't mean the business will determine its expenditures based on names.

Factual accuracy is the cornerstone of the profession.

In reporting out a story, it is the journalist's responsibility to obtain factual and verifiable information. People are the center of the story, and using their real names adds credibility to the story.

Now, there are circumstances where reporters use pseudonyms for sources -- mainly to protect victims of sex crimes -- or anonymous sources entirely. The latter is constantly debated among journalists. However, the consensus is using anonymous sources is necessary when all other avenues of getting someone on the record is exhausted or the story is so explosive that people close to the information are willing to shed light on an issue so long as their name is not used in print, mostly from fear of retribution, which is more common than you think.

> I worked for a global oil company a few years back. I had then and have now no misgivings whatsoever about that work.

I'm sure the salary helped ;)

Student loans, unless, of course, you got an entirely free ride to Harvard.

Switch Caps Lock to CTRL. Also, learn to touch type so you can place your fingers on the keyboard properly.

They certainly do not.

> The issue is, I know I would be fired, and cannot afford to lose this job. There is no one hiring in the area, and we're geographically locked due to factors around my child that I don't care to get into here.

Unionize.

Yes. It's all about PR, and if a company looks bad because it's forcing its employees to return to the office, amid a global pandemic and health concerns, that won't bode well, and they are likely to buckle under the pressure.

Not a chance. To Wall Street, social justice, "good morals" and ethics are not profitable.

Correct. This was a pointless move. Even if Facebook felt a fraction of pressure from Patagonia, they won't budge because the company will just return in August with ad-buys.

The better move was to stop ad purchases _permanently_.

This has been in the news for a while now. Good on Apple to disable the tracking by default.

Python to learn the basics of programming. Then Unix/Bash for navigating the terminal. Then C to do everything else.

Be prepared for the debt to follow you for a while.

Golang uses pointers and is a descendant of C, so you should feel at home.

Anyone running for office is a politician. How they use their power is what sets them apart.