This question is an ethics based query, and the interviewer wants to know how far you would go for a story. If you knew that a written piece of yours could go viral, but it would ruin someone else's reputation, would you still write it? If you would, what would be your reasoning? And, if you would not do this, discuss why.
"I only write the truth, and it has to have supporting facts. If we are talking about outing a politician for having multiple affairs, and there is proof of such, I believe I would have a responsibility to the public to publish that story. My rule of thumb is to always have undeniable proof before writing a piece that could be potentially damaging."
"I like to keep things non-controversial when it comes to people and their reputations. However, if it's for the overall good of the public, I would write the piece. My first question would be, is it gossip or is there some truth behind the rumors. If there were truth behind the story, I would write the piece."