Many journalists are honorable and professional, and will follow the ethical norms of the profession. Some aren’t honorable, and won’t follow those norms.
If in doubt about someone’s credibility and integrity, don’t talk to them.
Generally speaking, if they’re employed by a large, established news organization with a decent reputation (e.g. The Economist, NY Times, Financial Times), they have a fair amount to lose by violating journalistic ethics.
If they’re freelance, or employed by an online sensationalist outlet that’s notorious for slander (e.g. Gawker), then they have less to lose by violating journalistic ethics.
I think this is overstated.
Many journalists are honorable and professional, and will follow the ethical norms of the profession. Some aren’t honorable, and won’t follow those norms.
If in doubt about someone’s credibility and integrity, don’t talk to them.
Generally speaking, if they’re employed by a large, established news organization with a decent reputation (e.g. The Economist, NY Times, Financial Times), they have a fair amount to lose by violating journalistic ethics.
If they’re freelance, or employed by an online sensationalist outlet that’s notorious for slander (e.g. Gawker), then they have less to lose by violating journalistic ethics.
In my brief and unwanted foray with the media, I had people in my building called “noisy fuckers” in a quote printed by The Economist (perhaps because we weren’t cooperative with them and didn’t give them an interview on the record), got doorstepped when I was expecting a phone call, and had a bunch of inaccuracies printed by The Times. Always remember Gell Mann Amnesia is a thing when reading newspapers!