I'd genuinely be interested to hear what you think makes it defensible, because I can't see it as anything but a gross violation of privacy. As for Lois, she only did exactly what he wanted her to do (under threat of them being sent elsewhere either way).
I just don't think he is mentally stable after the crapfest that is Sanctuary's methods. (Yes, I am doing the "he is insane" defense.) Meanwhile, everything Lois did (including how she wrote it) feels like a violation of the ethics of journalism. Even if she did have no choice but to write about it, there were things she could have done to avoid getting into details
Oh, no I totally follow you on that point. My issue is more the other characters saying that he did a good thing. It seemed particularly off when he was otherwise 'taking responsibility' (but for the thing he did by accident, rather than the things he did on purpose).
I can't remember how detailed the page of her article that we saw was. I think it's hard to comment without seeing exactly how much information she shared and omitted.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
history79) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
scans_daily2019-05-29 10:32 am
no subject
no subject
Meanwhile, everything Lois did (including how she wrote it) feels like a violation of the ethics of journalism. Even if she did have no choice but to write about it, there were things she could have done to avoid getting into details
no subject
I can't remember how detailed the page of her article that we saw was. I think it's hard to comment without seeing exactly how much information she shared and omitted.