At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.
Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
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.
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
Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.
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.