> there are good reasons to hide people's private details

They do, and they do grant anonymity sometimes. But it's their call, and they made the call. They're not a PR firm; they have no obligation to be kind or gentle in their coverage. If they wanted, they'd be fully within their rights to publish a noxious hitpiece on the man. They were much milder than I'd have been. Siskind's said some awful stuff.

> everyone agrees that names are private information that shouldn't be published without good reason

The NYT doesn't. They use the real identities of the people they cover by default (that's generally how news works), and consider anonymity a privilege granted under special circumstances.

> where's the argument that that means you need to publish his name specifically

Because I would not want to give my business to a man who's recorded as thinking that Black people are genetically stupid. I'm not really interested in litigating Siskind's political views—I don't think this is the place for it—but I won't gloss over them. They're pretty foul.