I thought it was kind of funny when I was reading some of these sections on ethics and telling fact or fiction. There was many things that we have discussed and that should be obvious. I like the mini-section where Roy Peter Clark talks about being unintrusive after gaining access, but basically to be a pest to get everything you can in Lehman's terms. Part of his section also goes back to do not add, do not deceive, when we had a great discussion about that on Tuesday. Isn't is sometimes necessary to "not tell" the subject something in order to please readers and your editor, but at what point are you hiding to much? There are to many questions with ethics it makes my head hurts.
I liked Walt Harrison's quote on page 170, "journalists claim the right to determine their own ethical relationships", this is why they are so important to the skill. He compared it to anthropology, although thier code is much more clear. This is why the line is so dicey. Some and most of the ethics that are not clear cut are simpler to break. Katherine Boo thinks it helps to maintain a equal relationship by telling them everything on your mind as well.
"Enrique's Journey" makes me wonder again how far some journalists like Sonia Nazario are willing to go for the story. I think I would have said no to it from the beginning. She knew about the amount of danger from writing the story. She recieved over 1,000 phone calls the week following because of the reality and harshness of the story.
Ethics can be a sticky situation but is more then crucial to understand, that's what I got from reading these entries. I guess that's why Billy Madison choose that category for Eric in the academic decathalon.
"Man im glad I called THAT GUY"