The NYT isn't reputable anymore. Haven't been for a while. Case in point, this article they might publish.
They fired most of their senior editors in 2017 because they were both too expensive and enforcing old school journalist standards and integrity which doesn't generate clicks like hot handed opinion pieces followed by reverse opinion pieces does.
Though mind you that senior group was one of the biggest cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq, so take their integrity with a grain of salt.
As an NYT subscriber, I'm very concerned by this, but I think it's ironic that people skeptical of the media because they don't wait to get facts right are so willing to jump to the conclusion that Scott's account is the full story. I'm inclined to believe Scott, but just as a remotely plausible hypothetical: there's also been rumors of a hit piece floating around for a few days[1]. Maybe they uncovered something Scott doesn't want out there besides just his identity and this is his way of seeding distrust before it gets out.
If the piece can run without the guy's name then it should.
If he's violating HIPAA or something, then sure, name names. But if it's simply about the content of the blog, then his nomme de guerre should suffice.
Isn't this just speculation? He gave out enough good reasons for his identity to not be known, the biggest is that he works as a professional psychiatrist with clients of wide ranging political stances.
He's also, I suspect (I don't follow his blog), given and written enough to at least earn enough good faith to be taken at his word.
Yes, I give him the benefit of the doubt, but at the time I wrote the comment NYC was barely awake yet and people were already cancelling their subscriptions and calling for the journalist to be fired.
To be honest, I was hoping NYT would have cleared things up by now, but I've been monitoring Twitter and haven't seen anything.
I guess part of the problem is that there are few reputable sources. Reuters still seems ok. So does Financial Times. WSJ dropped in quality, but still seems to cater well tonita audience.
Or US-aligned coups. Passive voice and aggressively dodging the word "coup" can go a long way.
All awfully convenient for the State Department, and equally convenient for the paper's relationships with their contacts within it and other parts of the US government.
They fired most of their senior editors in 2017 because they were both too expensive and enforcing old school journalist standards and integrity which doesn't generate clicks like hot handed opinion pieces followed by reverse opinion pieces does.
Though mind you that senior group was one of the biggest cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq, so take their integrity with a grain of salt.