HackyStack

You admit you thought there could be a question of journalism ethics, a term used loosely these days, and instead of doing the ethical thing, which would be not to have the publication that bears your name review you, you said "let's cover it more!" It doesn't matter good or bad, or what you know your reaction to criticism is or has been in the past, or how well you know anyone on your staff (unpaid or not, that's what they are). The question is about perception. Readers who know nothing about you or your publication have to assume that, because it's your column, you read the copy before it was published. Whether you changed anything or not, that possibility is already an abuse of ethics. Additionally, how is anyone to know that you weren't cast in the role precisely because you'd be in charge of sending critics that might come and review it? See all the issues here? Even a perception of unethical practice makes it a slippery slope.