You are giving a television news report when a disaster occurs. What is an argument for continuing to run your broadcast through the disaster?

Question

anonymous · Answer

The emotional impact of the report will drive the importance of the disaster home to audiences listening in.

It is illegal for you not to continue reporting because the public has a right to know what is going on in the world.

If you stop reporting, you will be responsible for assisting people in the wake of the disaster with medical needs.

Studies show that reporters who halt their broadcasts during disasters have actually made the situations much worse.

anonymous · Answer

@Spectrum  @Captain_Page_Turner

anonymous · Answer

I would say the first one. Becuase there is no law about the public knowing what is goign on ..and i have never heard of any studies like that ..and also ....just bc you stop doesn't mean you would be responsible ..otherwise everyone at home would be responsible too

anonymous · Answer

The first one makes the most sense.

While it might be dangerous, it's not illegal to continue reporting. Also, ending your report won't force you to help people -- though nothing's stopping you from lending a hand, either. And I'm not aware of any studies showing that reporters that end their broadcasts have made the situation worse.

anonymous · Answer

Mhmm ^