So last week Grantland, which prides itself on serious sports-related longform journalism, published a piece about a revolutionary new golf putter, and the mysterious person, Dr V, who designed it. In the course of researching the story, the reporter found out that more of the designer's credentials were rubbish, and eventually discovered that the the paper trail for them completely disappeared - and finally realised it was because Dr V was trans, and had tried to separate themselves from their previous life.

http://grantland.com/features/a-mysterious-physicist-golf-club-dr-v/

Sadly, after being tracked down for questioning, Dr V killed herself. Grantland went ahead and ran the story, to some acclaim before, people started questioning the morality of publishing a story which seemed to feed directly into a person's suicide. The site has now put out a lengthy explanation and kind of apology for it.

http://grantland.com/features/the-dr-v-story-a-letter-from-the-editor/

It seems like a tricky issue though. Dr V had lied about their credentials and past, and that was part of the story. If that had been because Dr V had a criminal past and was hiding it, that would be pertinent for a reporter to explain, right? So should the reporter have hidden Dr V's trans status because she wanted it to stay hidden? Or did they have a duty to produce it as a reason for Dr V's fabrications?