In classical Greece and currently, the responsibility of the rhetor was and is debatable. Through Aristotle’s Treatise on Rhetoric—in conjunction with his Treatise on Ethics—one learns an ancient philosophy then can compare the old viewpoint with the current one, specifically in relation to news media. For example, Aristotle believed that the orator was responsible for persuading the audience of a logical conclusion, leaving personal evaluation out of the argument, with the exception that only a moral issue should be presented at all. This responsibility is a journalistic ideal as well; however, sentiment—whether personal or popular—may enter a report. Furthermore, although Aristotle stated that a rhetor could not be accused of harm if such was not the intent, today’s news media audience may be held accountable for an outcome because of the coverage of a media event. However, Aristotle's lack of responsibility on the part of the orator is granted on the premise that a universal concept of good is grasped, while news media today are asked to remain impartial when commenting on an event, disregarding moral conclusions. Finally, in Aristotle’s view, an orator is not held accountable if ignorant of all the facts, yet presenting the complete story, specifically reporting all sides of a situation, is a lauded principle of competent journalism. It is possible to apply these standards for persuasion, objectivity, ethics, intent, and acceptable ignorance to the methods used by news media in responding to many recent events, including the Iraq War, New York Times reporter Jason Blair’s fabrication and plagiarism, and the attacks on September 11, 2001. By analyzing Aristotle’s philosophy on the accountability of the rhetor in relation to contemporary news media’s reaction to events, one is able to evaluate the responsibility of the modern-day rhetor and note that it depends heavily on the audience’s expectations.