It's not just ResetERA, but I've seen it increasingly on the internet where people can't separate authors and individuals from larger collective institutions. Except for their unsigned Editorials, everything opinion-wise the NYT publishes has a name attached. It's that persons views, not the NYT's which are only officially stated in the unsigned editorials. This is similar throughout journalism.
Even games journalism you get people going "oh IGN gave [score to game] so ignore this" while IGN has probably thousands of reviewers over its history, that was why stuff like "so God of War > Killzone 2?!?" was banned on GAF, it ignored that it was potentially two different reviewers...now many games magazines had editorial score deciding or checking, and early on games sites did too Jeff has talked about this regarding Gamespot, and CGW regularly described their joint score evaluating system, but the rush to get reviews up first probably killed that off ages ago.
My personal favorite is this regularly happens on reason, they publish the entire magazine's articles all on the same day, so you could have articles that go up in the same hour that say "we should avoid war with Iran", "we should go to war with Iran" and "we should all convert to Shia Islam" and you always see comments attacking reason's inconsistency and WHAT IS REASONS POSITION ON THIS?!? Sometimes they'll just post news stories and you'll get "OH SO NOW REASON SUPPORTS THIS?" when it's a straight up news article on the subject. This reached an amazing level of enduring mythology when it was continually reported that "reason voted for Obama" because in their 2008 and 2012 election issues, of the 40+ people interviewed (from editors to columnists to "famous" libertarians to so on), two said they were voting for Obama (one because the LP was not on the ballot) and one said he hoped Obama beat McCain but wasn't voting, all in 2008...and only the latter two were actually employed by reason in any capacity during any point in their lives.