The section about ethics in Telling True Stories kind of scared me, to be honest. The ethical code of journalism seems to be, for the most part, vague and subjective. I realize that it's really hard to go black-and-white about a lot of this stuff, but can't we have better guidelines than (and I'm paraphrasing here) "feel it out"? Also, Nazario and Hull's problems, deciding whether or not to help when help was needed, really stumped me. Both decided not to intervene, Nazario with Enrique's phone call and Hull with the sick baby, and they probably salvaged their stories by doing so. But I don't know if I could have been in the same situation and not done anything. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying it's really tough. I loved Wallace's "Host." Probably the most valuable thing I can take away from it is Wallace's skill in writing about someone to whom he is diametrically opposed in values, politics, morals, sensibilities, and really every area, and actually throwing his opinion in the piece, while somehow managing to remain fair and portray Ziegler in some sort of sympathetic or at least human light. I liked the boxes, they were immensely entertaining, but I don't think a normal person that was reading this solely for pleasure would have the patience for them. Plus, let's be real: are most of them necessary? I wonder if there is a way Wallace could have kept the personality of this piece while making it less formidable of a read.