I am confused about how the New York Times and journalism in general treats the pseudonymous and anonymous. I am continually annoyed at how often articles use unnamed "sources close to" a matter. It fosters a culture of government unaccountability. But the post says that it is "New York Times policy to include real names". Are there some subtle rules involved here that are not obvious to me?
If you can give a reporter ongoing "access" to less-public information, you can extract concessions from them. Scott Alexander doesn't have enough weight for them to worry about burning a bridge with him.
