Should Reporters Ever Help the People They Are Covering?

While bringing our society accurate news from around the world is important, taking the time to improve or even save someone's life holds more significance. Reporters have been trained to go to ruthless extremes to benefit their organization, and this needs to change. This will not only decrease some of the suffering in poverty stricken countries, but also improve the mindset of the reporter. Seeing death and destruction can be detrimental one's mental health- soldiers suffer with post traumatic stress disorder every day. How can reporters be any different? Also, there are more pressing issues than news and art. "Journalists travel with bundles of hard currency, usually dollars, to pay for hotels, transport and translation. A small fraction of that cash might go a long way for a starving family," Walsh tells readers. Many people use photography to bring to light our world's problems, but it could be more beneficial to simply help the person in your photo. We pay commercial models millions of dollars, and yet reporters and photographers give nothing to those that need it the most. And yet, there isn't just one option. Many reporters have good memories in order to support their data and ideas. They could help those that they are covering, maybe in exchange for some information. Or after eating a meal with a starving family they could find some time later to recall their collections. In any case, saving one's life should have priority over covering a news story.

In my personal opinion reporters should help the people they are covering to a certain extent. I say this because if someone would sit and watch a murder happen and do nothing and not tell anyone they are guilty by American law. I know that the journalists who are covering the events going on sort of helping because the tragic events get attention. What I mean by a certain extent is that there is obviously so much one person can do and I think that a journalists should only help out the people that they are jourling on to a certain extent. For example, in the article it said that “journalists travel with bundles of hard currency, usually dollars, to pay for hotels, transport and translation. A small fraction of that cash might go a long way for a starving family.” In this case a journalists can’t really do anything because they need that money to get around, in my opinion all they can really do is report it and do what they can to bring attention to it. But however if a journalists where to be around when a bomb went off and just sit there and write while there were injured people on the ground and not help them that would be wrong.

I agree with most peoples views on the situation, I feel that in my perspective in which a journalists captures a story to view in the eyes of many there should also be an exchange in which something be provided to the cause. Although I understand that this is where the story provides, I feel as if it should come with a price, Whether its assistance from the journalist or individuals reading the article. We subscribe to a lot of nonsense, why should there not be subscriptions with greater perspective on situations on these causes.

I feel as though it depends on the situation on whether or not a journalist should provide assistance for those they covering. As Walsh mentioned that if they're in a hospital they can only provide as much assistance as the doctor. If they gave money to one patient and not another would that be fair? Of course, it wouldn't be fair because what gives them the right to value that the plea of one and disregard the rest. The journalists are there to do their job of capturing the truth. Someone may make their story more direr in order to receive more money. But extending a helping hand every once in a while is not a bad thing because with the money given it could have helped feed a family for at least a week. It comes down to what the journalists think would be right things to do at that moment

I think that the journalist are trying to help as much as they can, but that there is only so much that they can do. “What if they embellish their story for the next foreigner who comes along, thinking they could get more money? Plus, we have a job to do.” I think that this says a lot about how they try their best, but that there are certain limits that they have to take. I want to be a journalist in the future and so articles like this I am very interested in and I do believe that they give money when they can but also they are their on a job and are not there to volunteer with organizations that are their helping the people in need. Another major issue is the ethical concerns that can happen if they give someone money and later find out that they are lying about their situation. “Donating money, or other forms of assistance, can be fraught with ethical, moral and practical complications.” I totally agree with this because if they donate money and and then realize that the person was lying, then that could be a major concern that is risking their career and one that understandably they probably won’t take. I feel that journalists try their best to support the people in the places they go, but sometimes it’s just not possible.

Absolutely not. Reporters are not required to do anything to help these people. They are there to do their job and that is to work. But if it so happens that people need help, reporters have free-agency to do what they please.

Journalists should provide assistance in the lives of the people they are reporting, whenever possible. A reporter’s job is to enlighten a group, state, or community. The U.S. Constitution gives reporters the right to share information about anyone, anywhere. This quintessential American freedom stems from the Founding Fathers’ identification of inalienable rights. As an American, we should spread the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, wherever we go. For example, a reporter that goes to Yemen in order to raise awareness about the major suffering within the divided country should not merely take a picture of malnourished children, then saunter back to their all-expense paid hotel room. That would bypass the point of raising awareness among privileged Americans to help people in Yemen. However, every reporter’s priority must be their safety. They must use their expertise in their field of study to determine what they can and cannot do.

My answer is yes, reporters should definitely help the people they are covering. I believe it is in human nature to help people in need, but it should be done to a certain extent. I disagree with Peter Singer’s statement, where he addressed his belief that people should give others a portion of their income to handle problems like hunger and poverty. I believe people should be able to provide for themselves, but when a reporter sees a child starving to death, they should definitely give them food or money. The article states, "Many were touched by a powerful photograph by Tyler Hicks of Amal Hussain, an emaciated 7-year-old girl whose haunting stare brought the war’s human cost into shocking focus. And many were devastated to learn that, soon after we left, Amal’s mother brought her back to the shabby refugee camp they call home, where she died a few days later." These reporters could have saved a little girl's life, but instead they took pictures and carried on with their day. Yes, taking pictures of these poverty stricken places greatly helps the starving people receive support and money, but when presented with an opportunity to save someone's life, they did nothing.

I think that if reporters have the money they should help, if they have the time they should help serve. But, writing about these people is also being helpful because they are helping make sure that other people become aware of what is going on outside of their country or state. Reporters can also get more information by volunteering, they can get more insight into what they are writing about and get a better, “scoop” as I’ve heard it called. In the article it says, “The problem isn’t a lack of food; it’s that few people can afford to buy what food is available.” Making others aware that this is happening could make them want to send money and/or supplies. Writing about these things is helping, helping get other to help.

Although wartime journalism stems from something as horrible and devastating that is war, it is vital for today’s society. Wartime journalism gives a brief glimpse into the lives of families in war torn countries and these brief glances have a huge impact not only in the U.S but all around the world. As rude and pretentious as it may sound, these pictures help to remind people everywhere that their is greater suffering in the world and we should be blessed for the things, people and homes that we have which these people, sadly, do not. The author of the article states that “Donating money, or other forms of assistance, can be fraught with ethical, moral and practical complications.” While this may seem cruel and cold hearted, it is true. A reporter should not be helping these families, it hurts me to say that in my clean and safe home, but reporters should not be responsible for giving to people in need. Everyone should be, we should be helping these people instead of gorging ourselves on overpriced foods . Reporters should not be criticized for not helping when we all can be helping. Sadly, we need wartime journalism to remind us to give back and help others even though it may not be as rewarding. Our society has turned into one that only cares about themselves, and we need pictures and articles like Amal Hussain's, the 7-year old girl who died from starvation to remind us that other people are suffering and they need our help.

My answer to the question, sadly, is no. the reason I believe we should not help people like Amal and her family is because it could cause a major conflict between the family and all of the other people in the area who were dealing with poverty. Other families may think it is unfair that they received help and others did not and try to steal from them or even shun them from the civilization in which they live, which could be a major problem if they ever were to need help. The mixture of hunger and jealousy could make some of the people do horrible things such as breaking in, stealing food, or even cutting those people out of their everyday lives. So no, I do not think you should help a single family in that situation, but if you do, you must spread the help throughout the entire village or group to where this family lives to ensure safety for this family.

The answer (hopefully) is yes. The next question is how should they go about helping the people. Just giving them a finite amount of money won't help them in the long run. They might survive a little longer, but in the end they will only be extending their pain as the amount of resources they can get is finite. Managing to get them a steady stream of money, on the other hand, is unpredictable in its outcome as they could either get dependent on it, manage to be successful in setting up a separate life or fail, or it won't be enough to tide them over with the changing times. Aiding one specific subject(s) will only get you accusations of bias and/or more victim(s) in need. Trying to tackle this problem by yourself isn't enough, that's why there are the proper channels of aid that is provided. Making donations of volunteering for charities would make a much more stable impact than going it alone. It's not that the reporters don't want to help, or doesn't help the people that they cover because they want to stay on an "unbiased, outside perspective", it's more like their efforts would be better put elsewhere. Just "giving their all" wouldn't cut it in helping these people, on photo is all it takes to realize that they need serious, committed help. In the situation that they are in direct contact with someone who needs help, I think that bringing a specialist (sooner or later) would help significantly, but if the situation doesn't permit, a little money definitely wouldn't hurt.

The primary purpose that journalists are striving to achieve especially journalists who are reporting stories in war-torn countries is to spread knowledge and awareness about what is really going in these countries. As naive as it may seem, I believe that the majority of humans are inherently good hearted and for that reason; I think that in a situation where you were faced with the opportunity to help out someone who is barely surviving by giving just a couple dollars, I cannot see any reasons against it. A quote that really stuck out to me in the article was " Journalists travel with bundles of currency to pay for hotels, transport,... A small fraction of that cash might go a long way for a starving family." I believe that this quote best reiterates the point I am making in that giving just a small portion that is nearly meaningless to you could mean something to someone who has nothing. Therefore, although I do understand why many journalists would try to stay an unbiased outside, perspective, I fully believe it is completely possible to take photographs and also help the family out. I think as a whole, our world needs more people who just give out of the kindness of their hearts because living with the conscience that the lining of your pocket could be the only thing separating your one dollar from someone living another week is a lot worse than providing a biased article in some newspaper everyone will forget about in a few weeks.

The question should not be whether it is ethical to help a child out or not, it should be whether it is fair to only help a child or a family. The journey of a journalist is a tough one because they not only have to cover the war but also have to make sure that their decisions don't affect the area they are covering. If a reporter decides to lend money to a family because of their financial situation, he is hurting the economy of that country even more because the reporter is showing the people an easy way to make money, therefore, stealing their will to work. I am not saying that because of the fear of harming peoples culture reporters should never help a family, they can still help by making sure that a doctor reaches the family in order to treat the sick. But I don't think that it is fair to give a family some money to make yourself feel better about their situation and cause the family to spend their time looking for journalists instead of work.

Some of the main ethical concerns with reporters helping the people they are reporting on are that it may not be “fair to single out one person or family for help,” and that it isn’t the reporter's job to help; “reporters are trained to bear witness; aid workers and doctors have the job of helping people.” Most of the reporters are writing articles about the crisis in Yemen to make people all around the world aware of their issues and make people want to help them, but if the reporter themselves passes up a direct chance to help a Yemeni, that seems hypocritical. While it isn’t the reporters job to help the starving Yemenis, I think it is their job as a person to do the right thing and do anything they can to help, even if it is just the small act of letting a family catch a ride on their vehicle, so they don’t have to walk to their destination. I think that while it technically isn’t fair to only help one or a few people, helping one person is better than helping no one at all. For those few people that they do help, it makes all the difference to them; in some instances a few dollars for a taxi fare could help parents get their dying child to the hospital and potentially save its life, or a single meal could help hold someone over until they find a way to get their next meal.

I believe that the reporters should have helped Amal. Had I been in their place, I would have done everything within my power to help her. If I were a journalist in a war-torn country, I would’ve lent my services to any and all who need it. While it does strike a bit of controversy as “ Reporters are trained to bear witness; aid workers and doctors have the job of helping people.” (Engle, 2018, para. 20) I don’t think this is an issue that should be divided by job description. If I was in a position where my money could save a person from death, I’d spend every cent, not because I was a doctor, a reporter, or anything else, I’d do it because that is the good and human thing to do. If a reporter is making money off the stories of the underprivileged, the least they could do is provide them with a meal. My understanding is that if someone is in an area where their help is needed, they help. If you have the ability to help save someone’s life, do it. While this does give people the opportunity to take advantage of your help. To that I say that can happen in daily life, in the end a good deed is a good deed, and I believe in karma.

In my opinion reporters who choose to do stories in low income countries they should at least try and help. Imagine being in the worst situation of your life. This is their life this isn't just a 30 min documentary that when you turn off goes away. This is their reality. But not even that what if your house was burning down and your animals and family were trapped inside. Would you want people to come and record you at your worst or help you save what you have left? I believe this is the question we should be asking ourself. Although some may disagree I believe that if you aren't able to help then you should choose to help in countries that won't need the assistance. But then that bring me to wonder should the countries be providing assistance rather then the reporters within them.

I believe that if reporters have the chance to help people who they are interviewing, they should take that chance. In the article it states that "Journalists travel with bundles of hard currency, usually dollars, to pay for hotels, transport and translation. A small fraction of that cash might go a long way for a starving family." If the journalists do indeed travel with a lot of money, they could possibly give a small amount to a starving family who could use that money to provide food for their family. Even if you couldn't provide help for the entire country you are visiting, you could still make a difference in someones life by donating to them. Even a small thing will help for a bigger cause.

I think that reporters should help the people they are reporting about. The whole point of being a reporter is to help out the people who need it the most, and to report about the people that are important. Like the article said, “reporters usually carry hard cash… a small fraction of cash might go a long way for a starving family.” If they are in that situation and they have the money to help them out, even a little bit, then they should help. I feel like this article doesn’t take into account another aspect of this opinion. If a reporter were to report on a topic, for instance, if there was breaking news about someone doing a good deed and they wanted to report that, they would be standing in front of a park. If they saw a woman who was getting assaulted in the park, I don’t think that a reporter would have the same opinion. In that situation, a reporter would almost never say, as it says in the article “reporters are trained to bear witness; aid workers and doctors have the job of helping people.” I also don’t think that reporters would just be like “We have a job to do” like it says in the article. I think that if there was no one left to help in a situation like that, the reporter would report on the scene and then help out the woman, whether that be calling the police or physically stepping in.

Journalist go to these places for one reason, to get the people's story. Journalist aren't missionaries they might not feel a call to help those in front of them. But personally I believe journalist should help because I know they won't solve world hunger but they help that one family or person. It says "Couldn't we have ensured that her family would get help?" I think we, journalist, should help those that they can. Even if it is one meal because that could have been their only meal this week. They would be thankful for anything.

I believe that although though there are many contributing factors, we live in a world that is already so selfish and journalists should definitely try to stop and help in dire situations. It is hypocritical and nearly sickening to hear of journalists who are reporting about an issue to spread awareness but then turn around and do absolutely nothing to help that issue. I think it is quite an easy solution and I agree with what a woman on Twitter said that was mentioned in the article. "You can take the picture AND provide assistance. " The article shares a haunting story of a starving 7 year old girl trying to survive in devastated, war-torn Yemen. It tells us how a photographer took a picture of her for his article and then just days after that, the girl died from starvation. This story just made my heart drop because what is just a couple dollars for the journalist, could've been what kept that little girl alive for a few more weeks. Although I do understand the ethical, moral, and practical complications, I think that a journalist doesn't necessarily have to play the role of a doctor, but giving a few dollars or a warm meal could go such a long way. I believe that all people especially journalists need to take off the mask of being stone cold, feel some warmth in their hearts, and just give a little

I believe that it is human nature to help others, but I also believe that there is an extent to that. I disagree with Peter Singer’s statement, where he addressed his belief that people should give others portions of their income to handle problems like hunger and poverty, even suggesting that sacrificing 10 percent of your salary would help, but it also may not be enough. I think people should be able to provide for themselves, and not have to depend on other people as their main source of income. So when it come to the question of if a reporter, a person who should stay a non-biased observer, almost unseen, should provide help to families in need, I think that they should. Some reporters shared their experiences of witnessing tragety, saying that sometimes they get angry, look away, or simply pretend that they aren't there. So I think that if you are to help, give others things that they might need. Maybe just some food or money, and depending on the circumstances of the person in need, a lot could go a longer way than we think. But there is another side to take into account when thinking about this question. Will that person that the reporter is interveiwing change their story or exaggerate to appeal more to what the reporter is looking for? Maybe they will, in hopes that they would receive more of what the reporter is offering. To answer the question, I believe that people should help others, to an extent.

While I think that wartime journalism is valuable,and can do a lot of good in the long run, I also feel that people's lives are ultimately more important. The right news story can move people to action, keep people informed, and spark discussions that may not have otherwise been had. Photos like the one of Amal Hussain can have a strong emotional impact on people, and put pressure on the public to help in some way. However, in cases like hers, I think the reporters getting the story should have done something to help her, especially given that she died a few days later. I realize that helping one person could mean that other people then expect to also receive help, and why that would make someone hesitate. However, if someone's life is in danger, I feel like that immediately overrules any concerns about giving out money, food, etc. News stories do a lot of good, yes, but a reporter should also help those they reported on directly if possible, because sometimes a short term solution is necessary, like with Amal's case.

Personally, I feel journalists should help the people they are covering because those people are being kind enough to let the reporter into their personal lives to better their articles. The least reporters can do in return is help these people, who may or may not be suffering due to their living conditions. Wartime journalism is valuable because it visualizes exactly how struggling people are living, creating a feeling of empathy by the viewer. With the ability to see exactly what is going, readers feel more connected to the story and the purpose is conveyed effectively. When one reporter photographed a starving 7- year old girl, the debate sprung up if whether they should have helped the child or not. They should have absolutely helped the child, whether it be give her food, a shelter, money, new clothes, etc. Anything would have been helpful and quite possible could have prevented her death that followed shortly after. I would love to be a reporter and have the ability to capture and educate the public on events that are taking place on our earth. Although many articles will be sad and quite difficult to photograph, the purpose they will serve in informing the audience will be worth it. Additionally, if I was placed in this position, I would do anything in my power to help struggling people as they helped me immensely with my article.

Should Reporters Ever Help the People They Are Covering? Well, I don’t know much about being a reporter, but I know that a few dollars could certainly help someone starving. As I read the article, I understood why a reporter would think twice about giving money to someone who needs it---it would be hard to know the limit to which you should help them, other people would expect to receive money too, etc. Yet at the same time, it breaks my heart how desperate people in Yemen are: “A crushed state...beggars congregate outside supermarkets filled with goods; markets are filled with produce in towns where the hungry eat boiled leaves.” The fact that people are having to eat BOILED LEAVES, which I didn’t even know are edible, is appalling. I thought of what I would do if I was in a reporter’s position, and I knew that I would do what I could to aid someone who is suffering and think about the consequences of it later. Reporters shouldn’t always help the people they are covering and it's risky, but in extreme cases, then yes, I think they should. A lot of people each giving a little bit of help makes a big difference. “But while we may try to mimic a stone, we are not stones, and every day in Yemen someone told me something that made a lump rise in my throat,” the reporter said. Yes, there are people starving and in need of help, but reporters still have a job to do & a message to carry. I hope that they'll help people when they can, but I know they can’t every time they want to.

The most important thing for humans is to lend a hand to one another. A journalist may discover a great story about a community of people in poverty and sell thousands of copies, but what is the point about informing others about poverty when nothing is being done to improve those people's lives? You can write about issues all you want, but that will not contribute to a change that obviously needs to be made. In Ms. Walsh's article, she quotes a tweet that she received, "You can take the picture AND provide assistance. One doesn't rule out the other." It would give me a sense of guilt to be interviewing a poor, hungry woman with a full stomach and a pocket full of money. Even just a little bit goes a long way.

I personally think that journalists should help the people they are reporting on. The reporters already go very far out of their ways in order to uncover the best story they can so what harm would it do if they actually tried to help the people that were struggling. I think wartime journalism is valuable because it shows the world what is happening in places that are at war. It shows the world the terrible things that little kids like Amal have to go through without choice because of war. Wartime journalism doesn’t sugarcoat anything and that makes the impact and message of the story come across clearer. Photos like the one of Amal Hussain, the 7 year old girl who later died from starvation make an impact by connecting more to the readers emotions. Reading is one thing, but seeing a real picture of a little girl struggling or other children struggling connects with readers like words can’t. I think the Times reporters should have helped Amal Hussain because it might have prevented her death. One negative consequence of helping Amal would be that the other children and people there might feel like they are also entitled to the help and might try to force themselves into getting help. Helping one girl isn’t really fair when there are hundreds more in the same exact situation. I would not want to be a war reporter for one specific reason, I don’t like I would be able to control my emotions when I would see people in need and children in need.

Photographing and writing about war-torn, struggling and suffering civilians is a journalist's job description but, when is it their job to completely neglect the fact that they are able to offer a helping hand? This helping hand should not make them risk their life or put their team in jeopardy but, couldn't some words of encouragement, a phone call to a loved one or a first aid kit help that suffering individual get back on two feet? If I was a journalist, watching people fight for their life or react to what's left of it would be the most challenging action to endure. I would have to think about what my instructors have taught me about sticking to the story and reporting about what is seen but, I'd come to the realization that what these people are going through is not a "story," it's real life. It can be helped if we put down the camera, notes, and pen. Offering all you can in the moment is more life-changing than a story many can only see through a screen. In my opinion, the most powerful part of this article is when it discusses the seven year old girl. It says, "Why didn’t we do something to save Amal’s life, they wanted to know. Did we just take the photo, conduct the interview and move on?" “You can take the picture AND provide assistance,” one woman said on Twitter. “One doesn’t rule out the other.” I'm not a professional journalist but, I know that offering a helping hand in a time of suffering could replace any picture ever taken.

It is a journalist’s job to tell the story of the people they meet, but is it really right for them to change the story? Each journalist, like Declan Walsh, has to make a choice- tell the story or change it. Tyler Hicks made this choice- he told Amal Hussain’s true story, and she died not long after. I can’t say I agree with his choice morally, but he told the genuine truth. Amal Hussain’s story brought the disaster in Yemen to the world’s attention, and so do articles like this one. The articles being written on this issue are shocking and painful, but they make people listen. If each and every article had a happy ending, would people still listen? People are inspired to change the bad stories- to save seven year olds dying of malnutrition. I don’t think it is a journalist’s duty to change a family’s life entirely- but a few dollars, a ride to the hospital, or one meal isn’t going to compromise their integrity. These items will help the family without making a major change to their story. What’s more important is the journalist writing a truthful article, one that can change the lives of the people they meet.

Reporters have to be objective. Their job is to go into an area, gather information, sometimes form opinions about what’s going on, and then to share that with the rest of the world. This is going to sound heartless but it’s not their job to provide for people. They do that by bringing attention to the plights of those they report on, enabling aid to reach them. Doing nothing might destroy you, but it keeps the reporting unbiased. Someone might ask “Did we just take the photo, conduct the interview and move on?” and while that sounds uncaring it’s really the only way for journalism to remain pure. Plus, like one person asks: “Is it fair to single out one person or family for help?” It’s not, and that could even create professional sufferers, people who act as though they have it worse than everybody else and create multitudes of sob stories just so they can receive more aid from people passing through. In the end in my opinion it’s a lot like nature documentaries that you might see, such as one where an elephant was separated from its herd in a sandstorm and died, or a polar bear was trapped on melting ice and couldn’t get food. You want nothing more than to help, but you know you can’t. You’re trapped in the cage of observation, not allowed to interfere.

I think that journalists should assist people in need when it is safe for both the victim and the helper. When these journalists go to these third world war struck countries they should expect to be stuck with these moral dilemmas. Should I help these people directly by giving them money and food or should I help them in the long run by spreading awareness? These journalists that do not choose to help directly are criticized, but we must keep in mind that these articles they are publishing are spreading awareness everywhere in the world. These articles arguably do a lot more help than a few dollars and a loaf of bread. I think journalists should try to help if they can but not be criticized if they don't.

In a food-deprived world, reporters are sent to assess the situation and report it. They bear witness to suffering people going through unimaginable pain, yet they do nothing about it. Should the reporters do something to help the people? Personally, I think they shouldn’t. In a way, they are helping them with their news stories by spreading awareness to those in need. News reporters help indirectly; however, they shouldn’t help directly. There are other people whose jobs help directly. Those are the people who should help, not the reporters. “Reporters are trained to bear witness.” They are the ones who see it happen and inform us. The news they report let’s the readers be the ones to help the people in need

Although the lives of others are more important than an occupation, I feel that it's not the reporters place to take care of those in need. The wartime journalism is valuable since it can show the harshness of what's occurring in the world around us because of issues that aren't really worth this much pain for. Although we all like to share our opinions on what a bad person the reporter is for not helping Amal, there's no way that they could've foreseen what was going to happen. What occurred after the reporter left is not their fault and the blood is not on their hands. If anything, the fault would be in the hands of the community for allowing their citizens to starve. No, I would not want to be a journalist or reporter. We'd all like to say how we would give so much to assist the one poor soul who they were reporting on but what about the rest of the population that is starving? Instead of giving a little money here and there, the reporters are doing so much more by giving people stories to cry about, and if someone really takes it to heart and starts a charity fund for the reported community, the good that comes out of it would be because of the same person who didn't assist those in need at the time, but in a long term.

I have a strong passion for journalism; telling the stories of others has always been a valuable gift that I strive to possess. A key trait to good journalism is an objective voice and impartial view of events that are covered. It is especially difficult in a war-torn country, where people everywhere are struggling to get by. In the instance of Amal Hussain, I do believe there may have been opportunity to help her and her family. There are many It is ethically complicated, and would be impossible to provide assistance to all families due to the crisis in Yemen; reporters should not feel obligated to aid people in the midst of crisis because they are meant to be in the shadows of the world. Wartime journalists have to maintain a neutrality in order to provide the public with an informative report of the conflict. Showing compassion to one side may have led to critics saying that they had a bias because of their kind actions. Even though the New York Times journalists were unable to save or help Amal Hussain and her family, they were able to tell her story. The general public has a better understanding of the conflict in Yemen and how it affects families all over the country. Journalism may leave out the empathy people have, but the stories they tell speak louder and explore the deeper truths of the human experience.

Being a wartime journalist I feel, is a very important job for people in this world because it gives a closer insight into the harsh environment of the war. Their job is to go wherever they need to go and report back on the matter with an unbiased article. Their job is not to go and save the day. They are supposed to be the informers and get the word out there that these people need help, this is what it looks like, and this is what is happening. If they assist in any way they lose their credibility for that piece because it has been tainted by their biased relationship on the matter. By them helping the few people they see the reporter ruins the chances of millions of people seeing and understanding what is happening. Those millions who see what is happening can help a lot more than that few the reporters could right then and there.

This is a morally ambiguous gray area, a question that perhaps has no true answer. Reporters are trapped between their commitment to the truth and their humanity. Should they remain dedicated to the truth, recording events without interference or embellishment, or should they strive to change the suffering they report on? Declan Walsh’s accounts of his time in Yemen are quintessential examples of this internal struggle faced by many reporters. His memory of the hearty meal he ate juxtaposed with the starkly with the faces he saw in the hospital, a haunting reminder of how he exists in two different worlds: the comfortable, chic life of a well-funded reporter, and the war-torn slums of Yemen. This puts him in a rather difficult position, forced to observe horrific suffering, having the resources to help, yet being unable to. However, reporters are not leaving the people that they cover with nothing. The publicity they provide gives the plight of many, for instance, the Yemeni, the worldwide attention they need to fix the persisting issues with their country’s politics and economy. The fact that this very conversation exists is evidence in support of this idea. While it may not be direct help, the coverage given by reporters is an invaluable resources that has aided countless people. It is unfair to force reporters risking their lives for stories to contend with the additional foe of their own conscience. They do their jobs well, and in the long run, they do help people.

Reporters should help people that they are covering. They are also humans, they also need help. Reporters should do everything that they can to help those people who they interview/report. However, the reporters do a lot of helping by just reporting these people. The story is published, other people in different countries will also see it, and these people would donate goods or money to these people. I think that if they see someone that could be helped by a simple act, then I think they should.

In a hunger stricken country where iniquitous ways have caused the lives of many, is it financially and morally responsible for the journalist? They're required to report on their surroundings, unfortunately carrying the heavy weight of the ensuing chaos resulting around them. But, is it really their position as journalists to assist a large epidemic occurring among them? In the article, Walsh comments oh how "Reporters are trained to bear witness; aid workers and doctors have the job of helping people". Journalists are not trained professionals, and their job consists of finding a heartfelt story, one of which consists of spreading information you might not of known about if they had not. I believe Journalists do aide those in need due to their ability of raising awareness of the situation, allowing reader's at home to find ways to support the cause and those suffering in other countries. As reporters, they may find themselves acting like physicians, by "examining stick-like limbs and flaccid skin with clinical detachment; tabulating figures about weight and age; listening as families recount their tragedies with amazing calm". I believe it is ignorant to state how reporter's cease to support others when in reality, they do. Next time when questioning the journalist's stance in assisting the problems occurring in society, I encourage you to evaluate yourself and your participation in the common conflicts occurring around you.

Journalists should always help the people they are reporting on if they know they are able. There have been many times in my life in which I have been watching the news or seen footage online of news reporters in situations where they could have done more than just document it. While documentation of important events especially in war times, there is often always, even if it is small, something that could be done to help. If nothing at all is done, it can be hard not to be angered by the situation. After all, it is a reporter's job to be in a place when important events are happening. If these events are bad and something could be done, it should be! While reporters shouldn’t be putting out fires or performing CPR it would not be wrong for a reporter to give food to a homeless person or help get an injured person to a hospital. Engle proposes this scenario, “A bomb goes off in a crowded street and you see dozens of badly injured people lying on the ground. Do you drop your camera to help the victims? What if that means sacrificing the story you were going to write?”(Engle, 2018, para. 3) In this situation, no matter what you are doing, continuing to do that, especially when you are filming seems incredibly disrespectful to not only the injured people but others helping them. No matter what your job description is, being a good person should always be at the top of your list of priorities.

Reporters and journalists should help the people they interview. How can such selfish individuals interview someone in need and not have the hint in their mind to do something small for them? How can anyone ignore the fact of their state of being? If they were to ask you for a piece of your food, would you give them a piece or ignore it and walk away to avoid the awkwardness of saying “n0”. Most people would say nothing and walk away, some acknowledge the fact they said something, but ignore what they asked. Are you one of those people? Or are you the one who gives a heart to others? I think if reporters were to stop and realize they had an opportunity to help someone, things would change and people would be worth more than a picture. The world would seem to be a better place if everyone just helped each other. What do you think? Is a picture worth more than a person? Or is the picture?

When the flood of famine and chaos envelops the reporter, is it really financially, and ethically responsible to provide relief? Reporters visit places of extreme need and poverty, looking to sink a heartstring-pulling story for the audience at home, but instead have their own pulled. It is an undeniably sad scene to see the impoverished, and anyone’s reaction would be to put their best foot forward to help, but in the case of reporters, they neither have the resources to sufficiently provide relief, nor the authority to do so, as “[d]onating money, or other forms of assistance, can be fraught with ethical, moral and practical complications” (Walsh). Reporters are employed and deployed to serve as objective observers in critical situations -- nothing more, nothing less. While it is sad to watch others suffer, reporters who choose to provide donations to the needy are giving their own resources out of their own budgets. This relief they provide is relatively short lived, as the author himself describes it as “so futile, in the greater scheme of things. What could [the money he gave] buy… ? A few days respite, if even that?” (Walsh). Reporters like these, unfortunately, unintentionally siphon money out of their own country. While this small monetary donation seems relatively insignificant, if this behavior became an expectation of reporters, massive amounts of money would come out of the country’s economy and into another. Simply, “[they] have a job to do” (Walsh).

After reading the article "Should Reporters Ever Help the People They are Covering?" I think that, while you may be a journalist, your first duty is as a human, and your duty as a human is to help others. You sitting back behind your expensive camera and not ever thinking about those you are photographing is completely inhumane. As we learned earlier this year, a journalist committed suicide after the backlash against his photo. I think, while backlash shouldn't be THAT extreme, we should teach journalists that sometimes you need to put down the camera and help real people.

This situation reminds me of a story that I am very fond of. The story featureas a man walking along a beach with thousands upon thousands of starfish wased upon the shore. As he walks, he continues to throw them into the water. A young boy sees him doing so and asks him why, pointing out that there are too many starfish to make a difference. The man looks at the boy, picks up a starfish, and throws it into the water. "Well," he says, "it sure made a difference to that one." In the article, Walsh points out that it might not be fair to "single out one person or family for help." Although it may seem unfair to other families, it will make an enormous difference to the family they elect to help. Although it may seem small, a helping hand can leave a huge impact on those families both physically and emotionally.

While I firmly believe in selflessness and helping those in need, the decision to help a person remains circumstantial: a journalist would need to consider culture, urgency of the situation, and other surrounding factors to make a just decision. In a situation where starving children in Yemen are being covered, I believe that journalists can “take the picture AND provide assistance.” By choosing both routes, the children can be helped and the picture can raise awareness and funds to further assistance for them and others who are suffering similar issues. But in a country where men are dominant and women suffer domestic violence, it can be potentially dangerous to step in and help a woman; it may result in increased abuse from the husband that may lead to permanent disability, rape, or torture. Ultimately, journalists are responsible for informing the world of a dark reality that individuals are experiencing, and should also care for those individuals; but in a tough situation, one would have to fight the tension between consequences and moral principles to reach a conclusion.

After reading the New York Times article, "Should Reporters Ever Help the People They Are Covering?" I feel very torn on this subject. On one hand, reporters have a job; get in, gather information, get out. Nowhere in their job description does it say that they can, or even should, help the people they have their stories on. On the other hand, all of your common human decency says that you should do something, maybe nothing big, but something. So either way, you can't tell me that you can see a child, malnourished and eviscerated, dying on the floor, and not feel the need to do something.

Given the choice between saving someones life and snapping a picture of them what should a journalist choose? After reading the article "should reporters ever help the people they are covering. Honestly I have never thought of this before, but after reading the article I can recall countless photos, paintings, and articles I have seen or read on people on the edge of starvation and even death, and never stopped to think the journalists could have done something about it. According to the article "you can take the picture and provide assistance. One doesn't rule out the other." No matter the circumstance there is always a way you can help out. In conclusion The reporter should help the people they are covering.

I believe journalists should help the people they are reporting on. While it is their job to report, it does not mean that they cannot give something to help. Wartime journalism is helpful because it helps to show first hand what it is like to live in wartorn countries. Pictures like Amal Hussain's help people in other countries feel empathy for what is happening in other countries. This sparks a want to help the people in need in those countries. Yes they should have helped Amal Hussein. If they had anything to spare they really should have helped. And I completely understand that a reporter's job there is to report the situation, but anything will go a long way to help people as desperately in need as Amal Hussein. The only negative consequence to me would be losing a little money, and the validity of the story does not matter. I would give my job to help starving people out there. I personally would not want to be a war reporter because I feel like I would be emotionally scarred from it, and I don't want that for me in my life. I want to help people and donate, but those emotional scars are unchangeable.

After Viewing the New York Times article "Should reporters help the people they are covering". I do believe that reporters should help the people that they are reporting on. This photo does make an impact in my life and if i was there I would try too help. But when I say help I don't always mean doing it yourself but maybe asking or calling someone over to help. There are many bad things that could come from helping like catching disease or injuring them further. But there are also many advantages. If you were a photographer you should never just walk away. In this article this girl passed away just a few days after this photo was taken. Just think if this person would have helped out maybe the girl would still be alive today. Overall this is my view on this New York Times article.

Helping the needy and objective journalism are not mutually exclusive. Feeding a starving child or providing refuge to a suffering family does not ruin journalistic integrity or objectivity, it strengthens it. The purpose of journalism is the proliferation of information to the general public who otherwise would not have any idea of what is happening outside of their own lives. If anything, helping the people in need does more to spread the information that needs to be spread and gets more people willing to help. People see on the news every day that children are starving and people are dying, these things begin to be viewed as unavoidable, as if nothing can be done about them. However once someone is shown being fed or housed or simply being helped, it opens a new dialogue, people talk more, people are more inclined to help, people simply pay attention. Helping the needy ends up getting more information into the hands of people who can use it for good. Helping the needy is not being a biased journalist, helping the needy is being a good journalist.

I think that in every way that they can without endangering themselves, reporters should try to help the people that they are recording and doing research on. I do not think they should go as far as to risk their own lives because there are other people to do those sorts of jobs that tend to be more dangerous. However, I cannot imagine myself being a reporter and seeing all the people suffering and just not bother to try to do anything to help. Something as small and as simple as giving a person in need a meal can mean so much to someone, and I do not know why anyone would turn down the chance to help a person, even just a little bit. Wartime journalism is very valuable, I believe, because it opens up people's eyes to what is really going on in the world, and shows them, in vivid and graphic photos or descriptions, the extent of the pain people stuck in warring countries have to deal with. It can change people's minds and move them to make a difference. I believe that Times reporters should have at least tried to help Amal Hussain, regardless of the consequences that would have occurred. Any life is valuable and if one has the chance to save someone like Amal, then they should take advantage of that chance no matter the cost. I do not think I would like to be a journalist because frankly I don't think I would be able to live with seeing all the suffering that goes on in the world. But if I was faced with a scenario like the one in this article, I would try to help.

Should reporters ever help the people they are reporting on? Yes, I think that they should help, but not enough that could put them in danger. It is there job to report information of events but also if they are reporting something as graphic as bodies everywhere in need of help, human nature comes into play. You might have to think to yourself, is this story as important as saving a starving child’s life? For some that answer might be yes and for some no, but when I read the line “Many were touched by a powerful photograph by Tyler Hicks of Amal Hussain, an emaciated 7-year-old girl whose haunting stare brought the war’s human cost into shocking focus. And many were devastated to learn that, soon after we left, Amal’s mother brought her back to the shabby refugee camp they call home, where she died a few days later” (Engle,2018, para.8) it struck an image in my mind of the little starving girl staring at the reporters who were probably well-fed and healthy. It just seems like human nature would cause us to feel an urge to help other humans in danger, if you can do it safely. Should the reporters have helped Amal? I think yes, to some point. I think it could have helped her just to drink a bottle of water and something small to eat that one of the reporters might have had on them.Overall I think reporters should help only if they can do it safely, and not over extend the help to the point that there job is no longer getting done.

Journalists should be able to help the people that they are reporting if they feel the desire to do so. It is just morally right to help others who are in need of help while you are thriving. The little girl Amal should have been help because the reporter knew she was on the verge of death which she did die a couple of days later. Sometimes it is better to help others in a time of need even though you think it won’t benefit you. For example, the author of “In Yemen, Lavish Meals For Few, Starvation For Many and a Dilemma For Reporters” states that “Donating money, or other forms of assistance, can be fraught, with ethical, moral, and practical complications” (Walsh, 2018, para. 17). Many reporters get stuck in a situation where they are not sure if it is right for them to help in, but honestly it is best to go with your gut. If a reporter thinks they should give assistance to others, they should even though others might say it was not their problem. If these reporters are willing to write about a situation they think needs attention, they should be willing to help out and possibly this could get other people to do the same thing.

I believe that, yes, it would be an excellent show of character for journalist to help the people they are reporting on. I agree with Chas Hull on that, but I also believe it is their job to simply report. I would say though that it would be okay if they turned off their cameras to help people. I would never want to be a reporter in a war torn area, I would get caught up in it and probably wouldn't be able to report very well.

I believe that journalists should help those who they are reporting on to an extent. They should help those people, but while off camera and not reporting anything. I don’t want to be a reporter, especially a war reporter, but if I were I would take the time to help those people. I would help care for people in need of assistance. If a “Bomb goes off in a crowded street”(Engle, 2018, para. 5), I would probably stop reporting and help those people. If I got in trouble for doing that instead of reporting/recording what was happening, I would be mad because it was the right thing to do. If I were in charge of those who go out to report on said issues, I would make them help others.

Yes I think journalists should help the people they are working on, I say this because they don’t have to take the time out of their day to tell you how their life is or whatever the story is on. Yeah they may want to tell people to maybe help them so they don’t do the same thing, but I still feel they should help them out a bit. I would never want to be a journalist because I’m not a good writer but I also don’t think I would be able to handle some of the stories. I could never be a war reporter because of how harsh and sad the stories are. It would take a lot of deciding whether or not to provide assistance because I would help her in a split second. If the food is expensive I would give her money to go get food, so she isn’t starving, I would never let her be hungry because the food is to expensive. In the article Yemen said the problem isn’t a lack of food; it’s that few peopel can afford to buy what the food is available” (Engle, 2018, para 9).

Before reading this article I would have agreed that reporters should do everything that they can in order to help the people they photograph. However, this article let you see it in a new perspective. There are reasons that you should, obviously, always do what you can to help people in need; however, helping the people in this case may do more harm than good. The reporters do a lot of helping just by taking their pictures, publishing them, and letting the story be heard so that other people can do their part to help them. The author also makes a good point saying “Is it fair to single out one person or family for help? What if they embellish their story for the next foreigner who comes along, thinking they could get more money?” (Engle, 2018). If the reporter/ photographer gave a few dollars to one family and felt guilty so they gave some more money to each family, they would have no money left for transportation and then there wouldn’t be any way to get other people to contribute to them. Doctors also travel the world trying to help everyone they could and while they do theirs, the reporters do their part to help them. While I don’t believe that a reporter should be forced to help others by giving money, or other ways that would take away from their chance to get attention for the people they are helping, I do think that if they see someone in trouble that could be helped by a simple act, then I think they should.