Also, I don't really think Banksy is an apt comparison. I agree that NYT amplifying it is a different thing then it being vaguely out there, but I don't think that it is an unjustifiable decision, it is hard to tell without the content of the articlehttps://twitter.com/Chronotope/status/1275449180295581698 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Blog to real name is very very very different Google to real name via NYT. One is your existing fan base can find your name. The other is all your future patients *start* with your blog. I cannot understand why NYT gets to make that call with zero justification.
0 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
It wasn't there, clearly. I tried and nope it wasn't there.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Yes, that is a recent thing if his real name immediately points to his blog. It still doesn't for me, and I immediately checked after the brouhaha and it did not. I lived with a same name person threat for years, page one versus page two, even is everything.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
To put it this way, even if his real name googling eventually led to his blog, taking it from page two to page one would make a huge difference in his life. It's not something any newspaper should do to anyone without significant, substantive and transparent justification
0 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Aram Zucker-Scharff Retweeted Aram Zucker-Scharff
Yes, and SPJ rules of ethics make it clear that's a major factor. He seeks influence and, in my experience, has achieved so with specific choices and alignment with some questionable corners of the web.https://twitter.com/Chronotope/status/1275477380895825927 …
Aram Zucker-Scharff added,
Aram Zucker-Scharff @ChronotopeReplying to @benlkeithHe helps run a reddit specifically for fans of him. Did he *seek* it initially? Perhaps not. Did he actively cultivate it, interact w/it, make strategic decisions about how to moderate his audience? Did he write w/awareness of his impact and used it to persuade? I think so.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Ah come on, there are actual questionable corners of the world. And by all accounts, the piece was supposed to be a nice one, not "oh, look, big danger to society". If NYT was justified in denying pen name to everyone who seeks influence, a lot of its opeds would never run.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Maybe but they often don't even out pen names as pen names. So it's not just Bansky (but surely he seeks influence too?) I know other pen names where the writer is not that careful, but still got to keep pen name in NYT. So it makes this exception particularly egregious.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.