In a move that has sparked controversy, The New York Times recently published an article revealing the identities of staff members working for Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
The article, titled "The People Carrying Out Musks Plans at DOGE," included the names and photographs of the DOGE staff, a move that has been criticized by many as an act of doxing.
According to the Western Journal, the Times' article appears to serve no purpose other than to expose these individuals, many of whom are software engineers with little formal Washington experience. The article has been met with outrage, particularly within conservative social media circles, who view the publication of these details as an intimidation tactic.
The article, published on a Thursday, essentially reiterates what is already known about DOGE. The Times identified 49 people within the department, a group formed by Musk with the aim of disrupting and shrinking the federal government. This mandate has been popular, except among Democrats, who now have access to the identities of these individuals, thanks to the Times' expos.
The Times' article doesn't limit itself to revealing the identities of the top brass. It also includes minor staffers, complete with black-and-white headshots. For instance, one individual, identified as Mr. Fulcher, is described as a healthcare and technology entrepreneur who has studied computer science and serves as a senior adviser to the secretary at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Critics argue that the necessity of publishing such detailed information is debatable. Musk himself has agreed with this sentiment, suggesting that the Times' move was essentially an intimidation tactic. Former Fox journalist Breanna Morello echoed this sentiment, stating, "The New York Times is putting the lives of DOGE employees at risk."
Interestingly, the Times chose to list the names of their reporters involved in the article at the very bottom, in fine print, rather than at the top, as is customary with a byline. This decision has led some to question the Times' commitment to transparency.
Musk himself has been vocal in his criticism of the Times, reposting a comment that labeled the publication as "pure propaganda." Other critics, such as conservative social media pundit Mario Nawfal, have questioned the Times' motives, asking, "Why smear the people saving taxpayers billions? Why push a hit piece instead of debating the actual spending cuts?"
Nawfal's comments highlight a growing concern among conservatives that the Times' article was less about transparency and more about intimidating those who are working to dismantle bureaucracy. This concern is further underscored by the Times' decision to bury the names of their own staff at the bottom of the article, in tiny font, without including any photographs.
The debate surrounding the Times' article underscores the ongoing tension between the need for transparency and the right to privacy. While the Times may argue that their article was in the public interest, critics argue that the publication of such detailed information about DOGE staff members serves no purpose other than to intimidate and expose these individuals. As this debate continues, it is clear that the balance between transparency and privacy remains a contentious issue.
Login