So, your editor accepts money from a politician to reveal some wrongful actions by another politician, which caused them to be removed form office. It's a good thing that the public found out ,but it isn't right that the editor accepted money to publish it as news. What do you do?
It's wrong that the editor accepted money, but it is a good thing that the politician was exposed before he could do any more damage. I'd be forced to admit that the editor might not deserve to lose their job. I would probably confront them and ask them to return the money. If they agreed then I'd just pretend it never happened. If they disagreed, I'd have to go to the publisher or another editor about it.
It's difficult to decide on issues like this because, although the means were less then moral, the end may have justified it. The results helped people in the end, so how can you say it was entirely wrong?
No comments:
Post a Comment