> to clarify, the explanation isn't condoning the reporter's behavior. it is simply trying to explain the behavior without assuming malice.

Oh, I understand. And that would be my general default assumption as well. Scott also doesn't assume malice.

It's just that some form of the "malice" interpretation is looking increasingly likely.

It got malicious at the point where Scott ALexander pointed out the issues to the reporter and the reporter still refused to protect his identity.