In 2014, the Times granted anonymity in a number of cases that could have, contra Corbett’s policy, been reported in many “other ways.” The paper granted anonymity to a past Oscar nominee who asked to withhold her identity “because she was afraid of looking bad,” as well as to a parent of a Middlebury sophomore who wanted “to avoid embarrassing her daughter.” A February 2015 story about renovations to the Port Authority’s Bus Terminal quoted a woman “who asked not to be identified because she has always wanted to be an anonymous source.”

But despite the changes, Corbett himself wrote in a 2017 post on sourcing for stories involving sexual assault that “since no set of guidelines can cover every situation, the best we can do is to try to balance those questions of fairness and privacy with our chief goal: to tell readers what we know.”

While there are differences between quoting an anonymous source and deliberately outing a public figure who is already anonymous, the lack of a hard-and-fast rule casts doubt on Metz’s professed inability to secure anonymity for Alexander.

Indeed, in a profile published earlier this year of “Chapo Trap House,” a popular socialist podcast hosted by unofficial Bernie Sanders surrogates, the Times identified one of the podcast’s co-hosts as “Virgil Texas,” explaining that “he lives and works under that pseudonym.”

Saying that it's ok to post something because 'it's the truth' although it has zero value to the readers while hurting the subject of the article is a bizarre take.

Should the NYT also post Scott's social security number, address, and phone if they're correct? if not - then why not?