The Ethics of “Exit” Malcolm Forbes was a famous billionaire. During his lifetime, he never admitted to being homosexual. The press generally ignores the subject of homosexuality. But after Forbes' death, the question of why this arose. “Outing” is a term used to explain the process of pushing someone to admit their homosexuality. Conservatives believe that sexual orientation should not be discussed in the press. And until last year, the press had bought into this belief. Some now claim that once you agree to enter the lives of the rich and famous, you lose that right to privacy. This is a complete reversal from the 1960s philosophy that celebrities do no harm, and if they do, the press knows not to talk about it. This article is narrated by a journalist who was tasked with “taking out” Forbes after his death. With this mission, he faced an ethical problem. Is it right for journalists to reveal a celebrity's sexual orientation without permission? Rawls' veil of ignorance is a model that one can use to decide what the appropriate action is when faced with 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 more consideration. Rawl would suggest that the journalist put himself in Forbes' shoes. Only by thinking about how Forbes would feel can the reporter get an idea of ​​how to handle the situation ethically. This exercise allows you to arrive at an impartial conclusion. But we must not hide behind this veil. There must be space here for ethical discussions. The freedom available to journalists is also taken into account. Journalists have a duty to report the news. But they must also take others into account. And even though Forbes is now dead, he remains a victim. Any article published around the middle of the paper......eds to know. A good journalist can differentiate between the right to know, the need to know and the desire to know. The only relevant one is the desire to know. The public would want to know these kinds of stories, but only to use them as gossip. And it is unethical to gossip negatively about a dead man. The public has no right to know a celebrity's sexual orientation. Yes, celebrities submit to the spotlight. But there must be a line that should not be crossed. 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 personal news that affects their lives. And this is why reporting on sexuality on Forbes is unethical. The media is not supposed to be a source of gossip.