Passage Summary: A charity director lied about how many people he helped, and investigators are blaming the reporters who just repeated his lies without checking the facts.

Conclusion: Journalists share equal responsibility with the charity director for the public's misunderstanding of the charity's impact.

Reasoning: The journalists failed to verify the director's claims and instead reported his exaggerated figures as established facts.

Analysis: This argument moves from a factual premise about a failure to verify information to a moral judgment about shared blame. To justify this claim, we need a principle that links the act of 'uncritically reporting' to the 'responsibility for deception.' It’s a classic case of holding the gatekeepers accountable for the quality of the gate. Look for a principle that suggests if you have the power to verify a claim but choose not to, you are just as guilty as the person who made it up.