That's the justification that Foos used. He was observing all of this for "science" and had to use journalistic integrity not to get found out, so he didn't report the murder. If Talese is going to sneer at Foos for his justification of pretending it's for "science", I don't think that he can claim the same justification for "journalism".You're missing a whole important part of what the "author" feels his occupation is and the particular 'ethics' of that profession.
I'm seeing the key difference here being that the journalist in question is both accepted by common society and accredited as an actual practitioner of his professed profession, as opposed to the main character of the article who not only possesses no education or credentials to back up his claims but in general is not accepted by anyone else as a "scientist" either. Can we agree that there is a difference between, say, possessing a medical degree and being hired to work in a hospital, as opposed to running around with a meat cleaver and insisting everyone call you "Herr Doctor"?
I do agree that there's a difference between a doctor certified by a government agency and someone who is not, although I'm only familiar with how it works in the U.S. However, I don't think that the analogy works in this case. There's no accreditation for being an author. If Foos had published his manuscript, he'd be the author. Having seen some of the awful things on Kindle that pass for books, pretty much anyone can get anything published and call themselves an author. Having had several works published before doesn't change the morality question. I don't see that as a big distinction between Talese and Foos in terms of the morality question. The only difference between Foos and Talese was that Foos did much more of the questionable behavior. But also bear in mind that the only lens that's possible to view all this through is the view painted by Talese. He is obviously painting Foos in a poor light while painting himself in a better light. I'm not condoning anything that Foos did. I'm just not giving a pass to what Talese did either.
Look up the journalist online. You'll find that he's considered the founder of a certain school/style of journalism. I think that's sufficient credentials, but if you want, look up his publication history, which you will note contains not a single Kindle book or self-publication. Look up his educational history, which you will note include no self-schooling or non-standard, non-accredited education. You know, do something besides sit there in your armchair to contribute to this discussion. Anyone can get anything published if they self-publish. That is not the same as having articles published in peer-reviewed publications, such as the Atlantic or the New Yorker, or newspapers. In the latter such environments, someone actually reads your work and judges whether it is worth being printed. Often, you won't be considered for publication without a history of being published by other similar organizations, and certainly not if you've put something out yourself on your rinky-dinky website or through Amazon epubs. Comparing Kindle authors to published journalists is like comparing kindergartners to people in grad school, because they're "both students." One of these sets actually knows what they're talking about, while the other...Well, Johnny might not be able to count to 100 just yet, we're not sure, but we're confident he'll get there by the end of the year! Meanwhile, Foos isn't trying to claim to be a journalist, he's claiming to be a scientist. That involves, also, peer-reviewed studies, acceptance by the scientific community, basic shit like I don't know, following the scientific method, etc. Attempting to trade on an "he could have been published, IF [but wasn't" is a very cheap argument, btw, fwiw. I could argue "IF" all day, but at the end of it, the fact is that "if" is a theoretical, not an actual, and therefore almost unilaterally inadmissible as an argument strategy: "Yes, but we don't, so your comment is irrelevant." You don't want there to be a distinction, so you're refusing to see it. That's fine. But it makes this discussion pointless. "If humans had wings, we would need to be careful about how close we got to the sun."
That road travels both ways. You're replying to my opinion of the situation. I found your arguments to be unpersuasive. I gave my explanation of why I found them to be unpersuasive. Your argument is that Talese' stature as a writer gives him the upper hand in his moral choices. I disagree. People's status, education, wealth, etc., don't give them the upper hand in making better moral choices. Talese made some questionable moral choices in this situation. Hiding those choices behind a cloak of journalistic integrity doesn't change that.You don't want there to be a distinction, so you're refusing to see it. That's fine. But it makes this discussion pointless.