I agree. He will not feel exploited because he is grieving and the lure of bright lights and a celebrity will mask the feelings of exploitation. These people are in a vulnerable position and are easy to take advantage of.
Tell me that "reporters" don't recognize this fact.
I meant that in the long run, I do not believe he will feel exploited, even when in retrospect he considers the event.
There was a quid pro quo here. Yes, he helped boost Today's ratings. On the other hand, he was given a priceless platform to make his points and advance his cause. And considering the circumstances, I would say Lauer handled the situation with dignity and respect.
Look, the very purpose of my Today show threads is to criticize the show's pervasive liberal bias. But by the same token, I try to be fair, and I believe this morning's segment represented valid TV journalism.
Try to put yourself in the son's place. Imagine, God forbid, that you had suffered the loss of a family member and believed government or private sector officials were to blame. Wouldn't you consider going on TV to make your point, knowing that the public exposure would greatly increase the pressure on the officials to make the reforms, etc. that you were seeking?
Thank You. I couldn't have said it better.
No one who is confronted with the sudden death of their father (mother, son, daughter, etc) should be held responsible for what they might choose to do or say at that fragile time, especially when turned into an instant "celebrity" by network TV. The idea that the "Today Show" cares about the real suffering of these people ... is laughable.
Did anyone stick a microphone into Katie Couric's face at the moment she realized her husband died? Did any reporter arrange a face-to-face at the mooment of death with the doctor and Katie and suggest that an earlier diagnosis might have saved Katie's husband...just to give the new widow a chance to comment, of course.