"Withholding information that would get innocent people killed was the right thing to do, not a journalistic sin"
About this Quote
The line is a provocation dressed as a confession: a journalist publicly defending the one act the profession treats as near-sacrilege. Jordan’s phrasing stacks the moral scale before you can object. “Innocent people killed” is not an abstraction; it’s a blunt, human trump card that makes “withholding information” sound less like editorial discretion and more like triage. The sentence is built to collapse the usual debate about transparency into a single, morally lopsided choice: publish and risk death, or stay silent and save lives.
The subtext is a rebuke to journalism’s self-mythology. By calling it “the right thing” and explicitly rejecting “a journalistic sin,” Jordan is taking aim at the quasi-religious language reporters use to sanctify disclosure. He’s also signaling an insider’s frustration with an industry that can treat process (publish everything) as virtue, even when consequences are catastrophic. “Sin” implies a doctrine; he’s arguing that the doctrine is too rigid for wartime reality.
Context matters because Jordan isn’t theorizing from a classroom; he’s speaking from the early-2000s media ecosystem where reporters were embedded, targets were real, and information traveled fast enough to become weaponized. His claim also doubles as self-defense: a preemptive argument that omission can be an ethical act, not a cover-up. The tension he’s exposing is the one modern journalism can’t escape: accountability to the public versus responsibility for the blast radius of what you publish.
The subtext is a rebuke to journalism’s self-mythology. By calling it “the right thing” and explicitly rejecting “a journalistic sin,” Jordan is taking aim at the quasi-religious language reporters use to sanctify disclosure. He’s also signaling an insider’s frustration with an industry that can treat process (publish everything) as virtue, even when consequences are catastrophic. “Sin” implies a doctrine; he’s arguing that the doctrine is too rigid for wartime reality.
Context matters because Jordan isn’t theorizing from a classroom; he’s speaking from the early-2000s media ecosystem where reporters were embedded, targets were real, and information traveled fast enough to become weaponized. His claim also doubles as self-defense: a preemptive argument that omission can be an ethical act, not a cover-up. The tension he’s exposing is the one modern journalism can’t escape: accountability to the public versus responsibility for the blast radius of what you publish.
Quote Details
| Topic | Ethics & Morality |
|---|
More Quotes by Eason
Add to List
