By leaving the whistleblower’s mask intact, establishment outlets believe they’ve navigated their way to the right side of the ethical line. But the whistleblower’s identity has become a political issue, and all this press coyness—giving this much information and no more—puts the country’s top publications at risk of losing the trust of their readers. This approach enforces the prejudice that the establishment press is run by a bunch of high-handed, hypocritical elites. It also surrenders a newsworthy story to elements of the right-wing press unencumbered by the Times’ ethical sensibilities when it comes to revealing supposed names of Trump critics and publishing their names.

In an Oct. 30 broadcast, Fox News veteran Brit Hume got it right in his criticism of the press, noting that reporters were under no obligation “legally or otherwise,” to withhold the name if it is newsworthy, which he said it was. A recent Reuters explainer buttresses Hume’s take. The whistleblower laws that apply to the intelligence community were written to protect informants who go through official channels from retaliation by the government, Reuters says. While exposure of the whistleblower’s identity by the president or other government officials could be interpreted as retaliation, the law does little to guarantee anonymity once the whistleblower’s complaint has been processed by the inspector general.