No it isn't, because the continuing behaviour of someone who Trump retweets is of continuing newsworthiness. Why should they hamstring their own ability to report on his behaviour?

So should they have promised to never report on his behaviour in future then?

"Something they decide they don't like" in this case being "continuing to refer to black people with the N word, continue to call for Muslims to be murdered, continue to publish antisemitic slurs against their staff".

They did.

But you're refusing to acknowledge the alternative to the decision you're criticising. As far as I can see, they had three options:

So it would be journalism if they published it last night, but it wouldn't be journalism if they published it now?

So It isn't noteworthy when the President tweets material made by people who refer to black people with the N word? Who call for Muslims to be murdered?

Is it not newsworthy if the President is retweeting material by someone who calls for Muslims to be murdered and refers to black people with the N word?

Because the President of the United States of America tweeted something he published.

It is if the President chooses to give him a public profile.

No. It's not an answer. CNN had a decision to make. There's no use pretending they just didn't. So they should have promised never to reveal his identity, yes?

No. I'm making a distinction between public statements he made under the assumption of anonymity before the President shared his material, and any he makes after. If you can't see the difference then we're probably at an impasse here.

Exactly. No answer. Because the alternative is "promise never to report on any public statement he makes again, regardless of its content".

People care about him and who he is because the President retweeted something he made. It's in the public's interest to know that the guy also publishes antisemitic and racist shit.

No but what should they have done instead?

Ah, okay. Fair enough, CNN approached him then.

So talk us through what CNN should have done then.

So you want them to have made this "threat" in secret?

So is there no difference in how noteworthy a person's public statements are before and after the President shares them?

Because the circumstances were changed by the fact that the President tweeted something he made.