4 ms·
This is the bargain you make when you talk to a journalist, you get your side of the story on the record, but you usually have no control over where the journal
by gjem97 9y ago
This is the bargain you make when you talk to a journalist, you get your side of the story on the record, but you usually have no control over where the journalist takes it. You're not comfortable with that, don't speak to journalists. Barring outright misrepresentations by the journalist about their intentions, I don't see anything wrong with this.
- mratzloff 9y agoSome of them didn't speak to Reed and still ended up in the story.
- accountyaccount 9y agoRight, but I didn't think it was morally right for the journalist to carry it as far as it went beyond the on the record elements. I'm not talking about whether or not it was allowable, I'm talking about the moral implications. If I openly talked about my sexual partners with a journalist (in this case, he didn't) — it would be kind of messed up to track them all down, find out my specific kinks, and then publish that without asking me. You could technically do it, but I don't think I could feel good about publishing it.
- gopz 9y agoOkay, but if journalists had no ethics whatsoever beyond a legal obligation, than no one would want to talk to them and we would not get to listen to people's stories. It's not so much about what you could get away with as a journalist, but about trust between you and your subject. I think that by and large Reed did a good job of giving the story a fair telling. There were a few things though, like what was said in the article, that went to far in my opinion.