Which news organizations are you thinking of? The top tier newspapers are the WSJ, NYT, WaPo, and the LA Times. It's less interesting if, like, Reason wades into the controversy about story and doesn't deliberately poke a stick in Alexander's eye. Frankly, at the point where we're batting the process story around rather than the substantive piece about Alexander, even the NYT would be unlikely to use his real name; what would be the point?
Sure, but again, this is a story about the controversy. I knew Alexander's real name when the story broke a few months ago, and I flagged posts here that used it, because again: what would be the point? But in a profile of Alexander in the NYT? With his name so obviously available? Why would the NYT be obligated to pretend they didn't know what his name was, or to collaborate with Alexander on how best to portray him? They're reporting on Alexander, not for him.
First, you responded to a comment saying other news organizations wrote about "the issue" without using his name with a request for examples, so the New Yorker is one.
Second, the NYT isn't obligated to withhold his name, just like the NYT isn't obligated to pretend what Trump says makes sense, or to fact-check its own Iraq WMD reporting, or to publish Tom Cotton, or to publish CCP apologia for the Hong Kong crackdown. It's just making a bunch of decisions that positively and negatively impact its reputation. [Considering] publishing Scott's last name was one that negatively impacted it with no appreciable upside; nobody who read a putative article about him without his real last name would have cared.
I think the proposed Alexander article hurt the NYT's reputation among a cohort of potential readers who firmly believe in Crichton's Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect and have weird ideas about journalism to begin with. I don't think it cost them meaningfully. I am certain that the way Alexander handled the situation more or less ensured that his name would be on the tips of lots of people's tongues --- that's the infamous "Streisand Effect" in action.
I don't so much care about Alexander. I won't use his real name, because there's no upside to it for anyone here or on HN. I do care about the idea of Reddit norms infecting journalism; that sounds horrible, because Reddit is atrocious at journalism.
I didn't say it was a large effect, I just said it existed. Do you think there were any negative effects to just leaving his pseudonym to stand, like they did for Banksy?
Editing to add:
> I don't so much care about Alexander. I won't use his real name, because there's no upside to it for anyone here or on HN. I do care about the idea of Reddit norms infecting journalism; that sounds horrible, because Reddit is atrocious at journalism.
You can feel free to use his real name, he does so himself in the article we're discussing.
I don't really see how Reddit enters into any of this apart from you just carrying a weird grudge against it. I don't personally care for Reddit culture either, but it doesn't make a ton of sense to me that it should matter in this case.
