The way we handle assault reporting is a whole different kettle of fish because it’s considered trauma reporting. Generally hold to the ethical standard of “do no harm” — whether we’re talking state politics or world leader. One can argue, but it’s absolutely the industry standard in most media orgs

April 11, 2026 - 01:32 UTC

2
0
29
I get needing consent for the release of some information

I don't get the logic of 'do no harm' meaning you must allow harm to continue without comment
1
0
0
Do no harm means don't risk exposing victims without their consent.
2
0
2
Thanks for the reply and that makes sense. It's a real mess and no real good answers, or avenues, for what to do if someone did witness something, especially if it's bordering on criminal
2
0
4
This is also why “whisper networks” end up developing as a way to warn people away from predators in less formalistic ways, and why “everyone knew” so and so was a predator for years without anyone being willing to go on record (think Weinstein).
1
0
4
This feeling is often what drives me to keep trying. I had allegations I cut out of stories in 2016 when sources weren’t ready make it to light on the record in 2024. People’s lives and risk tolerances change. But the secrets I learn and never wanted to have to keep absolutely haunt me.
1
0
20