The headline at the top of the New York Times home page was "When the best sex is extramarital."
It leads to an article by "Lawrence Josephs, a psychotherapist in private practice in New York," that says at the bottom, "Details have been altered to protect patient privacy."
Which details have "been altered" and which are true? And where is the line between what is a "detail" and what is more significant than a detail? The Times doesn't provide readers any guidance on either front, and it doesn't even let us in on the question of whether any Times editors are in on the question of what is real and what is altered details.
Nor is there any exploration by the Times of whether Dr. Josephs' patients were aware that their lives, or the psychotherapy for which they or their insurance companies paid, might be used as fodder for salacious New York Times headlines, even with their privacy supposedly protected by "altered details." Is writing about patients like this, even with altered details, compliant with the privacy provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996? Did the patients consent in advance to having their stories told?
It's all a fine topic for some exploration by the public editor. Maybe she already covered it and I missed it. If so it would be nice to have a hyperlink from the "details have been altered" line.