The Ethics of “Outing” Malcolm Forbes was a famous billionaire. While alive he never admitted to being homosexual. For the press the topic of homosexuality is usually ignored. But after Forbes' death the question arose as to why this was the case. “Outing” is a term used to explain the process of pushing someone to admit their homosexuality. Conservatives believe that one's sexual orientation should be kept out of the press. And until last year the press had adhered to this belief. Some now argue that once you have agreed to enter the life of a rich and famous person you lose your right to privacy. This is a complete departure from the 1960s philosophy that celebrities do no harm, and if they do, the press knows not to report it. This article is told by a journalist who was assigned to Forbes "out" after his death. With this assignment he faced an ethical question. Is it right for journalists to reveal a celebrity's sexual orientation without permission? Rawls's veil of ignorance is a model that can be used to decide what the correct action is with respect to this ethical question. He believes that the point of view of the weaker party should be included in the decision and, in most cases, given even greater consideration. Rawl would suggest the journalist put himself in Forbes' shoes. Only by thinking about how Forbes would feel can the journalist get an idea of ​​how to ethically handle the situation. This exercise helps you reach an unbiased conclusion. But we must not hide behind this veil. There must be room for ethical discussions here. The freedom enjoyed by journalists must also be taken into account. Journalists have a duty to report the news. But they must also consider others. And even though Forbes is now deceased, he is still a victim. Any article published in h... half the paper... you need to know about it. A good journalist knows how to distinguish between the right to know, the need to know and the wanting to know. The only relevant thing is wanting to know. The public would like to know these kinds of stories, but only to use them as gossip. And it is unethical to gossip negatively about a deceased man. The public has no right to know a celebrity's sexual orientation. Yes, celebrities submit to the limelight. But sooner or later there will be a limit that will not be crossed. And finally the public does not need to know this type of information. Knowing the sexual orientation of a famous man/or woman will not protect the public. The only news the public needs to know is news that affects their lives on a personal level. And that's why reporting on Forbes' sexuality is unethical. The media should not be a source of gossip.