PressEthic

Yesterday I read an article in the Daily News about FDNY firefighter, Rick Fowler, who worked at ground zero after the attacks and is now of welfare. I was disturbed about the angle in which the media decided to cover this topic. In the article, the Daily News decided to interview other firefighters who were in the same state of desperation instead of directly attacking the reason at hand. According to the Daily News, "Fowler, who needs nine medications to get through his days, was denied because he had resigned rather than retired." Why didn't the reporters interview the head officials at the FDNY regarding why he would have to be retired to get any type of medical assitance? Fowler, in many ways, is one of the heroes who saved many lives during the attacks and this is the thank you he recieves? If this isn't news, I don't know what is. Let me know what you guys think? Do you feel that they approached the topic at the right angle?