"people could find out the information is they looked hard enough" is also ridiculous because, yeah, that's trivially true - the journalist already found the information.
Create two separate web servers. Open both of their ports to the internet. Put a bitcoin on each one. Only publish the IP/URL to one of them on a website with millions of DAUs.
My hypothesis is the address you publish will see its bitcoin disappear more quickly than the other.
There's a difference between being able to easily find an answer, and knowing which question to ask. This is basically the entire point of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Not entirely, -- e.g. in some cases the information might only be available by breaching confidentiality.
But the fact that it was technically openly available to some degree doesn't change the fact that the people most likely to cause harm with it often lack the mental facilities to actually do the work to dig it up.
The same lack of judgement that makes someone more likely to engage in harassment or violence often also makes them less skilful researchers than a blinking NYT reporter.
Maybe a way I'd express your sentiment instead: If it didn't matter because the information was already public then why write the article in the first place? -- after all, anyone else could also learn these things so no one needs the article. The answer is because articles do matter and by that same token we can't disregard the ethical considerations regarding their content, even if it's entirely derived from open sources.
The theoretical open availability of the information also doesn't change the fact that many other venues (e.g. sites like Reddit and Wikipedia) will protect your personal information but not if the NYT has printed it with neon blinkers.
