In response to whoever it was said I didn't understand risk, I really really do!
But it is my opinion that the risk of being identified hasn't changed much. I think the stats are being manipulated.
We know that 800k unique users read MN each month.
We know that 1.5 million users read DM each day.
But that probably means that there are about 1.5 million DM readers per month as well - each day isn't going to be unique users.
Of those 1.5 million, many may already be users of MN, and therefore not be added to the mix. Some will be utterly uninterested (my dad for example - would be fascinated by a motoring article, wouldn't glance at an article about MN). So there may be a few extra readers.
In the DM, they are printing 1 thread per week. With about 4 or 5 posts. So your chance of being quoted in the press is very small. You then need to ask yourself how many of the people who read the article are then going to focus on that article (as opposed to all the other articles in the paper), and take the time to log into MN, and whether they are then, within the massive number of posts, going to focus on your post, and then take the time to identify you.
I think it is far more likely that someone will find your MN posts via google - especially if it is a specific situation - for example like the pregnancy/sacking tribunal.
But my point throughout has been that you should treat MN as a public broadcasting service - because that is what it is essentially. To be truly private you need to use MSN or email, or a private board/room.
I totally agree with Soupy when she says "I don't think the actual level of risk/publicity has changed at all, it's just more obvious now. You were at just as much risk of being quoted by a journalist before, some simply didn't realise it. Now they do."