> I always assume that journalists can, and should, have freedom to write what they want as long as it’s true and accurate. If I say to a journalist something i

> I always assume that journalists can, and should, have freedom to write what they want as long as it’s true and accurate. If I say to a journalist something is “off-limits” I assume it means I’ll end the interview and not engage with them if they cover that topic. Not that I have a right to dictate what’s written in the free press. > I’m honestly asking, I may just be misinformed. Can a source generally put limits on a journalist like this? Your impression of the relevant journalistic standard is accurate, but this case has some unusual features that mean evaluation has to go beyond what you point out. A subject can dictate the terms of an interview, but they don't have say over what the final piece looks like. If journalists made that concession to people they interviewed it would significantly erode the informational value of what they write, so this is a bright line according to journalistic professional ethics (at least in the Anglophone world, which is what I'm familiar with). And this is part of Jeong's defense of Koebler: He wasn't under any obligation to publish an article that Wu would have liked. But. In this case, the controversial claims about Wu were nonsense motivated by some pretty rank misogyny. In addition, Wu is working in a cultural context where such claims, when publicized, can materially affect her livelihood; worse, the politics of mainland China are such that they can put her in actual danger. (Another part of Jeong's defense of Koebler is that the harm Wu alleges isn't real; there Jeong seems on much weaker ground.) So it was a terrible judgment call on Vice's part to publish the piece that they did. I actually doubt they had any awareness of the consequences publishing that article could have, but their lack of consideration of that is itself a professional lapse when reporting cross-culturally. The bottom line is that Vice deserves opprobrium here, but not because they violated an agreement with Wu.