Is it unethical to hold a scoop for your book rather than immediate public release?

[Hood Critic]

A topic of great debate with all of the recent Trump Administration books that have been released. Good article in the New Yorker that poses the question to two Times journalists.

Do you agree or disagree with their reasoning?

The Pitfalls and Repetitions of Political Journalism

Snippet:

One critique of books such as these is that they have material that’s urgent to get out to the public and the public must know about, and that holding them for a book is somehow unethical as a journalist. I don’t actually agree with that critique, but I at least think it’s worth thinking about, and I’m curious if you guys have thought about it and how you wrestle with it.


j.m.: I would just say up front, Isaac, that we’re not going to discuss sourcing as a rule here. I would make two general points on your question, without engaging on the nature of our reporting. And that is just, one, people are always more willing to speak for history than they are for a story that’s going to be in the paper the next day......

 

[New Jeruzalem Journalist]

It's definitely antithetical to the spirit of journalism, but I can't really fault someone on the surface for doing it.

This is a case by case type of argument to me.

 

[Geek Nasty]

For journalists? No, but for these ex-Trumpers who are trying to polish their legacies after sitting on Trump's lap for 4 years? fukk yes.

As a matter of fact, people should boycott their books and pirate them. fukk all these guys because when he was in office they called anyone a citing these stories liars, now they want to make money off the truth.