# data[].attributes.body
The consequence of having ethics is that you may expose something to the public that does not need to be exposed. Telling a white lie is easer than telling the truth and to the media white lies are everything, and they are showing the people that that is okay and is socially the right thing to do. I do not agree with it, but it is something we have to accept and move on with.

# data[].attributes.body
Ethics are doing whats morally right and showing value. The media has no such morals or values as a whole. This is mostly due to s as humans wanting nothing more than to hear what we want to hear. The media can make us think better about ourselves and our views by ridiculing people and also showing us that it is okay to hurt others just to gain the most knowledge we can for our own self interest.

# data[].attributes.body
No‏:

@jonaustin70

@NateSilver538 Both. Social media + overall change in the news industries ability to make money also factors. Speed + Transparency > Ethics

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.ruderfinn.com/blogs/ethics/

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amF7fLJUjCY

# data[].attributes.body
http://callisto10.ggimg.com/imgsrv/FastPDF/UBER1/RangeFetch=contentSet=UBER1=prefix=PI-0298-2007-JUL00-LASON-=startPage=66=suffix==npages=6=dl=General_semantics_and_media_et=PDF.pdf?dl=General_semantics_and_media_et.PDF

# data[].attributes.body
http://callisto10.ggimg.com/imgsrv/FastPDF/UBER1/RangeFetch=contentSet=UBER1=prefix=PI-1273-2016-MAR15-IDSI-=startPage=10=suffix==npages=1=dl=NCSU_debuts_social_media_archi=PDF.pdf?dl=NCSU_debuts_social_media_archi.PDF

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwj9sd6ekdfRAhXJNiYKHRAyA28QjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Fis-facebook-still-the-dominant-social-network-2014-10&psig=AFQjCNFBaXFIdNEUVqRkIlpNeN5s_b2obw&ust=1485221939903399&cad=rjt

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUtmlhx2Z7E&index=3&list=WL

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjuePfhfDP8&index=2&list=WL

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HUl2ooMBk4&index=1&list=WL

# data[].attributes.body
The media will support their candidate no matter what they have done to keep the people on their side so thy can control the American Government.

# data[].attributes.body
People in the media and politics don't care who gets hurt as long as they get paid and influence what people think to support them as a politician.

# data[].attributes.headline
In 2004, I went on a mission for the Committee to Protect Journalists to Bangladesh, where journalists were being beaten and killed at alarming rates. Committee representatives are usually greeted warmly by local journalists in other countries, and Bangladesh was no exception.As I learned when helping foreign journalists facing repression, ruthless leaders can divide and conquer.It was soon clear to us, however, that many of those local journalists felt no such warmth for each other. There were two rival journalist unions, each affiliated with a different political party. When we insisted on meeting all the union leaders in one room, to discuss how they could fight back against threats and repression, you would have thought we had forced two civil war enemies to get together for a picnic. They came, but only grudgingly.The political rivalries in the Bangladeshi press corps were extreme, but not unique. In Turkey, in Angola, in Russia and other countries where the press is under fire, I’ve heard local reporters or editors warn that some colleague at another news organization “isn’t a real journalist,” or that somehow a journalist deserved the government’s retaliation for what he or she had written.My response: You’re all in this together. If you don’t support each other, if you don’t defend each other against attacks, you make all journalists more vulnerable to the politicians who would silence dissent and shut down investigative reporting. It’s a lesson American journalists will learn the hard way if they do not remain unified in this new Age of Trump.Shepard Smith of Fox News seemed to understand that when he said last week that no journalists “should be subjected to belittling and delegitimizing by the president-elect of the United States.” He was referring to Donald Trump’s press conference attack on a CNN reporter, after the channel published a report about the intelligence dossier on Trump and Russia.Smith’s words are a good start. But what if the assembled press corps had done what a Columbia Journalism Review writer suggested, picked up the CNN reporter’s line of questioning, “or even refused to continue asking questions, until the president-elect acknowledged” a question from CNN? Spontaneous unity in a room full of American journalists may be wishful thinking, but all it would have taken is one journalist – the next one selected by Trump to ask a question – to cede the microphone to CNN. That’s the kind of quick-thinking solidarity we’re likely to need when the occupant of the Oval Office takes such glee in putdowns of the press.Solidarity may seem easier in the CNN case than it is in, say, defense of BuzzFeed, which was denounced by the president-elect as a “failing pile of garbage” after it published the unverified Russia dossier in its entirety. Many in the news media criticized BuzzFeed’s editorial choice. That’s fine – we can debate the decision, just as we often debate the editorial direction of Fox News. But journalists need to separate their debate on editorial choice from the issue of Donald Trump and his freewheeling character assassinations. On that point, there should be no debate about how to respond: When Trump attacks one, he attacks us all.

# data[].attributes.subject
In 2004, I went on a mission for the Committee to Protect Journalists to Bangladesh, where journalists were being beaten and killed at alarming rates. Committee representatives are usually greeted warmly by local journalists in other countries, and Bangladesh was no exception.As I learned when helping foreign journalists facing repression, ruthless leaders can divide and conquer.It was soon clear to us, however, that many of those local journalists felt no such warmth for each other. There were two rival journalist unions, each affiliated with a different political party. When we insisted on meeting all the union leaders in one room, to discuss how they could fight back against threats and repression, you would have thought we had forced two civil war enemies to get together for a picnic. They came, but only grudgingly.The political rivalries in the Bangladeshi press corps were extreme, but not unique. In Turkey, in Angola, in Russia and other countries where the press is under fire, I’ve heard local reporters or editors warn that some colleague at another news organization “isn’t a real journalist,” or that somehow a journalist deserved the government’s retaliation for what he or she had written.My response: You’re all in this together. If you don’t support each other, if you don’t defend each other against attacks, you make all journalists more vulnerable to the politicians who would silence dissent and shut down investigative reporting. It’s a lesson American journalists will learn the hard way if they do not remain unified in this new Age of Trump.Shepard Smith of Fox News seemed to understand that when he said last week that no journalists “should be subjected to belittling and delegitimizing by the president-elect of the United States.” He was referring to Donald Trump’s press conference attack on a CNN reporter, after the channel published a report about the intelligence dossier on Trump and Russia.Smith’s words are a good start. But what if the assembled press corps had done what a Columbia Journalism Review writer suggested, picked up the CNN reporter’s line of questioning, “or even refused to continue asking questions, until the president-elect acknowledged” a question from CNN? Spontaneous unity in a room full of American journalists may be wishful thinking, but all it would have taken is one journalist – the next one selected by Trump to ask a question – to cede the microphone to CNN. That’s the kind of quick-thinking solidarity we’re likely to need when the occupant of the Oval Office takes such glee in putdowns of the press.Solidarity may seem easier in the CNN case than it is in, say, defense of BuzzFeed, which was denounced by the president-elect as a “failing pile of garbage” after it published the unverified Russia dossier in its entirety. Many in the news media criticized BuzzFeed’s editorial choice. That’s fine – we can debate the decision, just as we often debate the editorial direction of Fox News. But journalists need to separate their debate on editorial choice from the issue of Donald Trump and his freewheeling character assassinations. On that point, there should be no debate about how to respond: When Trump attacks one, he attacks us all.

# data[].attributes.body
Opinion Editorial

# data[].attributes.headline
In a transparent attempt at intimidation, the director of the federal Office of Government Ethics has been summoned by House Republicans to a closed-door interrogation session to explain his criticism of President-elect Donald Trump’s conflict-of-interest plans as “meaningless.” Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, accused the director of “blurring the line between public relations and official ethics guidance.”If anyone is blurring that line, it has been Mr. Trump, not Walter Shaub, whose independent office is responsible for making sure that federal officials observe conflict-of-interest laws. While Mr. Trump notes that the presidential office has greater freedom under these laws, Mr. Shaub has repeatedly warned that Mr. Trump’s plans are “wholly inadequate” and would leave him susceptible to “suspicions of corruption.”With the inauguration approaching and this pivotal issue far from satisfactorily resolved, Mr. Shaub deserves commendation, not criticism, for maintaining pressure on Mr. Trump on behalf of the public interest. Mr. Chaffetz noted that his committee has the power to decide whether to reauthorize the ethics office — a pointed threat to punish the office for the director doing his job.“They are strong-arming them,” said Richard Painter, an ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration. “It is political retaliation,” he said, aimed at the ethics office because it is “not willing to jam through” Trump nominees.The plans Mr. Trump announced this week fall well short of ending his business conflicts. As president, he would retain his stake in his brand-name business empire while allowing his adult sons to manage the operation, supposedly without interference from him. But that won’t prevent businesses from trying to curry favor with Mr. Trump through his family or dispel suspicions that his policies were made with an eye toward enhancing his family’s wealth.It is alarming to see so blatant a threat of reprisal before the administration even takes office. The nation needs better than that. Mr. Chaffetz’s responsibility is to maintain high ethical standards by all who serve in government, not to engage in naked partisanship. Previously, he criticized Mr. Shaub during the presidential campaign for not being aggressive enough in investigating Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees.The salient fact here is that Mr. Trump has repeatedly refused to comply with the norms and guidelines that previous presidents have met, including releasing his tax returns. Mr. Shaub is properly carrying out his duty in keeping these ethical questions front and center.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTOpinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

# data[].attributes.subject
In a transparent attempt at intimidation, the director of the federal Office of Government Ethics has been summoned by House Republicans to a closed-door interrogation session to explain his criticism of President-elect Donald Trump’s conflict-of-interest plans as “meaningless.” Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, accused the director of “blurring the line between public relations and official ethics guidance.”If anyone is blurring that line, it has been Mr. Trump, not Walter Shaub, whose independent office is responsible for making sure that federal officials observe conflict-of-interest laws. While Mr. Trump notes that the presidential office has greater freedom under these laws, Mr. Shaub has repeatedly warned that Mr. Trump’s plans are “wholly inadequate” and would leave him susceptible to “suspicions of corruption.”With the inauguration approaching and this pivotal issue far from satisfactorily resolved, Mr. Shaub deserves commendation, not criticism, for maintaining pressure on Mr. Trump on behalf of the public interest. Mr. Chaffetz noted that his committee has the power to decide whether to reauthorize the ethics office — a pointed threat to punish the office for the director doing his job.“They are strong-arming them,” said Richard Painter, an ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration. “It is political retaliation,” he said, aimed at the ethics office because it is “not willing to jam through” Trump nominees.The plans Mr. Trump announced this week fall well short of ending his business conflicts. As president, he would retain his stake in his brand-name business empire while allowing his adult sons to manage the operation, supposedly without interference from him. But that won’t prevent businesses from trying to curry favor with Mr. Trump through his family or dispel suspicions that his policies were made with an eye toward enhancing his family’s wealth.It is alarming to see so blatant a threat of reprisal before the administration even takes office. The nation needs better than that. Mr. Chaffetz’s responsibility is to maintain high ethical standards by all who serve in government, not to engage in naked partisanship. Previously, he criticized Mr. Shaub during the presidential campaign for not being aggressive enough in investigating Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees.The salient fact here is that Mr. Trump has repeatedly refused to comply with the norms and guidelines that previous presidents have met, including releasing his tax returns. Mr. Shaub is properly carrying out his duty in keeping these ethical questions front and center.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTOpinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

# data[].attributes.body
Opinion Editorial