Why did some New Journalists object to rearranging events in a reported story?

Within the New Journalism movement, some practitioners and observers strongly objected to techniques such as rearranging events, compressing dialogue, or creating composite characters because they believed these practices compromised the integrity of the profession.1

Those who opposed these methods argued that any departure from factual accuracy, regardless of how minor it might seem, discredited a story. They maintained that such techniques moved the work away from the realm of journalism and into the realm of fiction, thereby threatening the credibility of the entire field. Critics feared that prioritizing dramatic storytelling over strict adherence to facts would replace objectivity with a dangerous subjectivity. While some New Journalists defended these methods as necessary to make stories readable and publishable without sacrificing essential truth, opponents remained firm in the ethical principle that journalism must remain strictly grounded in verifiable facts to fulfill its commitment to the truth.1