> my patients – who run the gamut from far-left anarchists to far-right gun nuts
This strikes me as an off way for a mental health professional to publicly refer to his patients, even anonymously ...
I Am Deleting the Blog
101–110 of 1001 posts
Re: I Am Deleting the Blog
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
He could also name the NYT reporter.
I would like to know who the journalist is. Not so they can be threatened or put in danger. But so their reputation can take a hit. Part of the reason people do these things is because they can get away with it without any consequences.
The lead editors are responsible for maintaining ethical standards, and they represent the NYT. Adjust your impression of the NYT reputation based on this story. Also see the other comment on this article about Naomi Wu being doxxed, where the risk is deadly living under a tyrannical regime: the NYT hired the journalist responsible, who doesn't believe any mistake was made there.
Re: I Am Deleting the Blog
#103Never trust a journalist - they are not in it to educate or inform, but rather for their own self-interest and celebrity.
Re: I Am Deleting the Blog
#104A few relevant articles about how the New York Times claims to treat sources: [0]: "The Times sometimes agrees not to identify people who provide information for our articles...Sources often fear for their jobs or business relationships — sometimes even for their safety." [1] "If compassion or the unavoidable conditions of reporting require shielding an identity, the preferred solution is to omit the name and explain…
He wasn't really a source or a person in a hospital or elsewhere governed by privacy rules. As he says himself, his online persona is very lightly pseudonymous. It sucks that he's inconvenienced in this way but it's hard to see how these articles are relevant to his situation. If anyone actually wished him harm, they could probably find his name just as the reporter did before ever talking to him.
Re: I Am Deleting the Blog
#105Slate Star Codex is one of the most interesting blogs on the internet. If we doxx this voice, who do we doxx next?
Anyone who publishes content not approved by the regime. These blogs recklessly publishing free thoughts are sowing discord and disharmony, and even when they publish reasonable ideas, they only create a precedent for dangerous people to publish dangerous ideas. Nothing is more dangerous than an idea, and they should be regulated in the same way we regulated access to dangerous weapons.
Re: I Am Deleting the Blog
#106I stopped trusting reporters about 35 years ago, when I personally witnessed an occurrence, where a reporter was at the scene, and later read what he had written about it in the newspaper. It had practically nothing to do with what really happened, but was written in a way that most of their readers would most likely expect and endorse. I was still very young then, but it opened my eyes, and from then on, I mostly st…
That was bad journalism. Would you also stop trusting all doctors after meeting a bad one?
Re: I Am Deleting the Blog
#107This is a tragedy, Scott Alexander is such a thoughtful writer. I wish journalists would come up with some professional standards and make the title licensed, like doctor or lawyer. Right now we all recognize how important journalism is but journalists themselves run the gamut from ethical investigative journalists to clickbait manufacturers. Imagine if journalists also had to adhere to the equivalent of attorney cli…
There is already a sort-of licence. Being employed by a company as a journalist, especially if the company is a recognised media "name".
But the people this is deliberately not recognising is bloggers. And to be honest, I'm seeing better journalism being done by (some) bloggers than (some) paid journalists now (not their fault - the business model for journalism is a mess, while the model for blogging is working).
Re: I Am Deleting the Blog
#108Edit: Looks like they updated the link and title. Thanks! @dang, you might consider somehow incorporating the name of the blog into the title. I almost didn't click on this because "his blog" is quite generic. Slate Star Codex is frequently posted on HN and is fairly notable.
It's displayed after the title though. There's even a site guideline about this: "If the title includes the name of the site, please take it out, because the site name will be displayed after the link."
Re: I Am Deleting the Blog
#109This was in a piece specifically about the blog that was going to be positive, which makes this all the more inexplicable.
Journalists almost always tell the people they're interviewing that the piece will be positive. It means nothing.
Re: I Am Deleting the Blog
#110A few relevant articles about how the New York Times claims to treat sources: [0]: "The Times sometimes agrees not to identify people who provide information for our articles...Sources often fear for their jobs or business relationships — sometimes even for their safety." [1] "If compassion or the unavoidable conditions of reporting require shielding an identity, the preferred solution is to omit the name and explain…
Given the preferred solution was not to omit the name, and given that reporting the name was avoidable, modus tollens implies that the NYT did not feel that compassion was required.