The doubt you are trying to introduce is exactly the doubt that Scott Alexander has about his well being once exposed to the readership of the NYT (or anyone else in the world who catches a whiff of it).
If you think the journalist should enjoy being able to do what they want without an Internet mob, then why wouldn't you think the same way about Scott?
Harassing journalists for doing their job (we don't even know what kind of article this is yet) and revealing the real name of some blogger that has barely hidden their full name either way is worlds apart. The outrage, if there would even be one, that the latter would get would also be because of their own writings. If you write on controversial topics and have a large following you can't expect some sort of total anonymity. That's just naive to the point of stupidity.
If you think the journalist should enjoy being able to do what they want without an Internet mob, then why wouldn't you think the same way about Scott?