I have to wonder why no one here seems to be ignoring the most obvious interpretation: Scott Alexander's identity is probably newsworthy. We might very well know him or her from other associations and the authorship of this blog would be notable and interesting.
I mean, obviously it's not the case that newspaper policy demands identifying sources. The Times writes about anonymous people all the time. If this article about a pseudonymous blog was going to stand alone, they'd run it.
My strong suspicion is that they have a juicier story about why Someone Important is writing a pseudonymous blog.
His real identity is not particularly hard to find, and as far as I know, he is actually just a psychiatrist and the author of SSC (among other things).
That assertion seems rather at odds with "NYT Is Threatening My Safety By Revealing My Real Name", doesn't it?
Again, the idea that journalists routinely burn their sources as a matter of course is clearly wrong. Source anonymity is inviolate, especially at the level of papers like the Times. They just don't do what is being alleged here.
If they want to tell us who he is, it's because his identity IS the story.
Again, I'm just struck by how much credence you're giving an anonymous blogger vs. the Times here. I mean... do you have a good example of an article where the Times burned a source in a situation where the story was about something other than the source's identity?
I'll say it the last time: what is being alleged here (that the Times is "doxxing" someone for political reasons) simply Does Not Happen in real journalism. It just doesn't.
I’ve read most of what’s been written on SSC for the last several years, so I don’t exactly think of him as an anonymous blogger. And the Times is made up of people, most of whom I’m sure are very talented and conscientious, but people nonetheless.
Journalists, as people, make mistakes. I suppose I would be equally incredulous if I hadn’t read so much of what Scott has written. And I think you have a very good point about “real journalism,” which is why I’m very interested to see what happens.
First, there is no difference in the context of journalistic ethics. If you promise someone anonymity then you keep that promise. They don't do what is being alleged.
Second: you don't actually know that. All we have is what Scott tells us he understood the reporter to have represented as the subject of the story. Reporters don't break promises of anonymity, but they routinely lie to sources if they think it will get them to disclose facts worth reporting.
All I'm saying here is that if this is escalating to a "shut it all down" level, there's pretty clearly more afoot here than a mere unmasking.
I mean, obviously it's not the case that newspaper policy demands identifying sources. The Times writes about anonymous people all the time. If this article about a pseudonymous blog was going to stand alone, they'd run it.
My strong suspicion is that they have a juicier story about why Someone Important is writing a pseudonymous blog.
And that changes things, IMHO.