I don't think that it's quite as bad as everyone says. Is exposing PFT's real name bad? Of course, you won't get an argument from me on that. But at the same time, she did bring up a few good points: mainly that PFT and Big Cat are always cited as the exception to the norm of Barstool's misogyny. I think that it's fair to investigate into whether the guy believes the crap Barstool is selling or if he doesn't.
I'm not so sure about even that. Is exposing his name "good"? No, I don't think it serves much public purpose if at all. Is exposing it "bad"? Well, he's a sports-entertainment personality. Part of his schtick is pretending to be a stereotype of a dumb knee-jerk sports-site commentator, in the truest Stephen Colbert fashion. He exists to be funny and talk about sports (and general pop culture). His anonymity serves no purpose other than focusing our impression of him on the caricature - it's not like he's some deep-undercover secret agent saving the world from bad guys.
So I'm left with "meh". She's asking the question about whether
he's supportive of all the misogynist bro shit that Portnoy is a magnet for and that Barstool symbolizes, which is fine, but I'm not sure the doxxing really enters into it. I guess it has the slightest bit of a point when she tries to distinguish the proverbial Stephen Colbert-the-character from Stephen Colbert-the-person, because the PFTC
character isn't going to comment on any such thing, whereas the private person behind PFTC obviously has opinions. Whether you care about those opinions is up to you, but I at least see what she's getting at with the distinction. She certainly doesn't spend a huge amount of time on it, and while it seems superfluous, I'm not sure there's any appreciable harm to it either.