PT142 · S4 · Q14 Journalist: It is unethical for journalists

The journalist doesn't make it seem like the distinction being pointed out is controversial. To the contrary, she makes it seem like a common sense distinction we should recognize. And the author doesn't offer an example of it; she just talks about whether that category of action involves actively encouraging a false belief vs. failing to prevent a false belief. Offering an example would be like, "Lying to Pam and telling her that her ex-boyfriend Izzy was just locked up for 10 years in Arizona, so that she'll feel comfortable sharing details of their relationship is unethical. Failing to tell Pam something you learned in your interview with Izzy is not unethical."

Out of Scope: defining Too Strong: all cases Our author doesn't define any one concept and then apply that definition to an entire class of cases. She provides a distinction between two different concepts like encouraging false beliefs vs. passively allowing them to occur. She she says that "unethical" should apply to lying but not to withholding info.

This is a mouthful to process, so we start from the ending and work backwards? Is the journalist trying to refute an argument? Sure, she's refuting the argument that "withholding info from an interviewee to get a better story is unethical, like lying to get a better story is, since both of them involve intentional deception". Is there an ethical principle supporting that argument? We could say that "It is unethical for journalists to lie, to intentionally deceive, to get a story" is an ethical principle that supports that argument. Does the author offer a counterexample to undermine that principle? No. A counterexample to that principle would be a journalist who lied in order to get a story, but it wasn't unethical.

The author is rebutting an argument that's claiming that "it's unethical when a journalist withholds information in order to get a better interview out of someone." She isn't clarifying and defending a moral principle.