View Single Post
  #68  
Old 10 September 2018, 04:46 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,334
Default

Just after the op-ed was published (day of or day after) the NYT podcast/radio show The Daily had the editorial page editor on the show to talk about it. (You'll have to search. I hit my article limit so I can't get the right link.) The host asked about "lodestar" and if they had considered changing anything to better conceal the person's identity. The editor said it never occurred to them to make such an offer. It sounded to me like the author was offering the op-ed but wanted it to run without their name. The Times agreed, after meeting the person in part to be sure it was authentic. The Times agreed to not reveal the person's name. The piece was lightly edited in the usual manner for such a piece.

This is not the same situation as agreeing to protect a source. In fact, as I understand it, Times reporters are free to try to figure out who it is. It is only the people who know because of the op-ed who are obligated not to reveal it, even to those reporters. This is different from having a protected source of information.

The editor said they had done this maybe 4 times in the past 10 years, so it isn't unprecedented.
Reply With Quote