Here's my reasoning: The Times has gone to the extraordinary measure of publishing an editorial anonymously, telling its readers that the author is an administration official. The Times has taken it upon itself to determine the credibility, veracity, and bona fides of the author, and by publishing the column, told its audience that the source is credible, accurate, and fair dealing. The Times has decided that for its readers, and as such, becomes the author of the piece. The Times' reputation stands or falls with the author's. When the author's identity is revealed - and it will be - the Times must be judged as well.
This is the same New York Times that has employed in the past or is employing presently such luminaries as Judith Miller, Elisabeth Bumiller, Jeff Gerson, David Brooks, Bret Stephens, and Ross Douthat. The only good that I can see coming out of this for the Times is that this blows up in the Gray Lady's face like a cheap novelty cigar, and the Times has to blindly crawl back to a position of journalistic respectability that it walked away from 20 years ago.
= new reply since forum marked as read
