LogFAQs > #952830133

adjl posted...

It is, however, obvious why he wouldn't personally share his name and why the journalists writing the article wouldn't push the matter. I'm sure the journalists could have found his name if they dug for it, and it would likely ultimately be deemed legal to do so if it were taken to court, but it's just easier and safer for everyone involved to not invite the kind of harassment and violence (and subsequent lawsuits) publishing his name would invite.

Before saying something like "it's the opposite of obvious," ask yourself "Do I really struggle to understand why things are unfolding this way?" and "Can I reasonably expect everyone else to face similar struggles?". If everybody understands the situation well enough to not warrant further explanation, that's the opposite of the opposite of obvious (or just "obvious," for short).

Did you ask yourself why journalists would have a vested interest in concealing the man's identity? And why tabloids in particular wouldn't want to post salacious supporting information like photos of the man and his daughter? Because it feels like you're being contrary for the sake of being contrary. All logic supports printing the man's name, because that's what these media outlets do. If they wanted to respect the matter, they likely wouldn't mention it at all. Therefore it's conspicuous when a name doesn't appear and odd when a wannabe tabloid writer somehow thinks it's obvious that something is withheld despite binging enough tablets to know that the fact it's being withheld is actually pretty fucking weird, particularly since it limits their clickbait.

---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.