Having just read the vomit inducing article on The Times website which names the Night Jack blogger (and no, I'm not going to link to it), I am aghast that they seem to be using some sort of public interest defence - almost as if they are performing a public service by unmasking him. Their reasoning seems to be that doing things anonymously is a bad thing.
OK, it's a point of view, and in some circumstances I can agree with them. So the next time I read in one of their political column "A source close to Gordon Brown", can we expect them to name the source? No, thought not. Hypocrites.
UPDATE: NightJack has, rather unbelievably, written an article for The Times HERE.