In the book The Journalist and the Murderer , Janet Malcolm raises several ethical questions, which journalists so often have to face. The author’s work is a thorough analysis of the case between the convict Jeffrey McDonald and the famous non-fiction writer Joe McGinniss, who was accused of the breach of faith. The essence of the moral dilemma discussed in this book lies in the following: on the one hand, a journalist has to render the facts or information in an impartial and accurate manner, which is his or her primary duty. However, he or she bears certain responsibility to the person who gave consent to the interview. The main argument, which Janet Malcolm puts forward, is that individual interests must never be sacrificed for the sake of public amusement or popularity of the book as it is often done. Certainly, this statement can be disputed; for example, some belletrists may raise objections and say that it is their duty to make the community more informed or knowledgeable. It seems that in this case, we should speak about a very common misconception. In her work, Janet Malcolm tries to unmask the true motives, which drive many non-fiction writers. The author states that journalists are always trying to make up excuses, justifying their immoral actions; she describes it in the following way, “The more pompous talk about freedom of speech and “the public’s right to know”; the least talented talk about Art; the seemliest murmur about earning a living” (Janet Malcolm, 1). The point is that in the overwhelming majority of cases, journalists deliberately place emphasis on public interests, though the only thing they are concerned with is the popularity of the magazine or the book. In addition to that, it is necessary to draw a clear distinction between public interests or general welfare and entertainment. There is a tendency among many journalists to divert, amuse, or entertain the audience but not to make them more knowledgeable or informed. McGinniss is an example of such a writer: he did everything to win the trust of McDonald, saying that his book would throw new light on his case. Nonetheless, it turned out that the famous writer had very little concern with the convict’s case. Janet Malcolm draws a line between journalism and entertainment; she states that Mc Guinness (or some other fiction writers) only intend to write a best-selling book, yet such work is not always based on true facts (Janet Malcolm, 111). Another aspect of this issue that we should discuss is the problem of self-righteousness. Many journalists are firmly convinced that the end always justifies the means. Such Machiavellian philosophy has been subjected to heavy criticism by Janet Malcolm. In her book, she says, “Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on know that what he does is morally indefensible” (Malcolm, 1). The author compares such people with predators, preying for human vices or miseries (Malcolm 1). It should also be pointed out that the relationships between the journalist and the subject presuppose certain obligations between the two sides, such as, for instance, honesty. Non-fiction writers attempt to insinuate themselves into the confidence of another book in order to obtain relevant information, which can make their works more convincing or eloquent; they f