In an article two weeks ago, despite objections from the Central Intelligence Agency and Deuce Martinez's lawyer, the New York Times chose to identify Martinez as the interrogator "who used shrewd psychology, not rough stuff, to get Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, to talk."

Clark Hoyt, NYT public editor explained the paper's decision in his Sunday column. The paper has faced criticism and reader's questions on their decision not to withhold Martinez's name.

"I understand how readers can think that if there is any risk at all, a person like Martinez should never be identified," wrote Hoyt. "But going in that direction... would leave news organizations hobbled when trying to tell the public about some of the government's most important and controversial actions."

The Times faced a classic journalistic dilemma. The paper had the duty to deliver accurate and substantive information, as well as maintain their journalistic independence, while balancing this with the obligation to seriously consider the consequences to a key stakeholder.

Bob Steele, of the Poynter Institute, was consulted by Hoyt after the decision, and discussed the issues in his Everyday Ethics column.

"This story is powerful in its substance. That power is enhanced by the specific use of Deuce Martinez's name," explained Steele. "Granted, the Times chose to use his nickname, Deuce, rather than his real first name, apparently to offer him some level of identity protection. But the use of his surname and nickname helps the paper achieve one of its primary objectives: bolstering the credibility of its reporting."

Steele did question "whether Times editors went far enough in seeking additional input from knowledgeable, independent individuals who could assess the potential risks to Martinez's personal safety and that of his family." Although the Times received input from Agency officials and Bob Bennet, the attorney representing Martinez, the Times did not seek "independent" voices who were not connected to the story, but might still be able to assess the potential risk to Martinez and his family.

Sources: The New York Times, Poynter Online