Vultures or Not?

In this project we read an article about the shooting that took place in Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. The question in overall was to see if the reporters were being rude by asking questions at the wrong time.

The authors tries to figure out whether the reporters were being rude by asking the victims overwhelming questions at the scene of the crime instead of considering their condition before asking. The reporters started asking questions through twitter trying to get a story, but what happened next was a tremendous ruckus.

One of the author's strengths was the fact that he put evidence of how the reporters were defending themselves. He put the part that the reporters needed witnesses in order for the news to break. Weaknesses the author made was the fact that he didn't put enough commentary on the people who thought it was wrong of the reporters to ask questions at such an inappropriate time. Another weakness was that he didn't make it quite clear if it was wrong or wasn't right for the reporters to bring back the tragedy to the victims by asking questions.

The general conclusion that the author made wasn't clear at all. At the end of the article he put a quote of one of the victims confirming her safety. Even through all the commotion of what happened the general conclusion would be that the reporters could ask questions but in a light toned way.

I think that the author uses good enough evidence to where you can see both sides of the arguments but he doesn't put his thoughts and emotions into the writing. The evidence he uses persuades and people are able to see perspectives of the argument.  The only thing I don't understand is which side the author is on. He doesn't make it clear on which side he agrees with.