Because his behaviour is newsworthy and if the President is sharing material made by an outspoken anti-semite and racist it's in the public interest to identify who that person is?

So if this guy continues to publicly make antisemitic and racist statements CNN should maintain his anonymity and blame Trump? Why should they blame Trump for this troll's behaviour?

So they should publish any antisemitic and racist statements he makes in the future but still maintain his anonymity? Why?

That's an interesting way of twisting the situation. What are CNN's conditions? To not continue to publicly say antisemitic/racist things under a now non-existent expectation of anonymity?

Yes, it's a threat to do journalism. How awful of those journalists.

One of the definitions of Platform, from Cambridge Dictionary:

Are you aware that the President of the United States tweeted a gif that this guy made?

It isn't the sword of damocles. It's them reserving the right to report on his activities if he goes back to publicly saying antisemitic/racist things.

So should CNN have promised to never report on anything he says publicly ever again then?

That doesn't contradict what I said.

No it isn't, it's journalism. Why exactly should they have promised never to report on anything he publicly says ever again?

If he uses the platform that Trump gave him to continue to publish antisemitic garbage, then that's newsworthy. You cannot expect a news organisation to promise to never report on anything a person says ever again.

I've asked this of someone else, but what is that a threat of? Journalism? It's a sad state of affairs if we're supposed to be angry at journalists for threatening to commit acts of journalism.

1. They didn't make an example of him.
2. He approached CNN, they didn't go after him.
3. He apologised before he got in touch with them.

No they didn't. He approached them after posting his apology.

FUCK YOU I AGREE

Did you read his apology? There's more to it than "he criticised CNN and they blackmailed him into never doing so again". I think you're mischaracterising the situation.

I apologise if I come across as belligerent here, but I don't understand what CNN have done that's indefensible. The alternative to reserving the right to report on his behaviour in the future would be to make some kind of promise or guarantee to never report on his behaviour in future. I don't see why they should…

A threat to what exactly, do journalism to him?

So in other words they didn't actually doxx him then?