This is anti-supported by the stimulus. The author explains that reporters try to act ethically by avoiding lying, as well as providing some details about what that means to different reporters. This all entails at least some effort to behave ethically.

The stimulus does not support this conclusion. The author is just talking about what journalists believe, and suggests no absolute moral claims about right and wrong. Also, even if the journalists’ beliefs are “correct,” they’re pretty clear that lying is always wrong.

This is not supported by the stimulus. While the author tells us that some journalists believe this, some also do not. Because the author doesn’t take a stance, we can’t say whether or not an omission truly counts as a lie.

This is not supported. The author never indicates whether lying is ever permissible—all we know is the journalists’ opinion, so it’s impossible to compare that to an absolute moral truth.

This inference is strongly supported. The author explains that all journalists oppose lying. However, some journalists think omission can be acceptable (meaning, it’s not lying), while others think it counts as lying. So, journalists (or reporters) can disagree.