Please have a look at this news article(Crowds watch in silence as a woman is molested). This news created a high-tide for many news channels and they showed the video of this news again and again. At every single time, the news was telecasted with the video, news reader never failed to mention that crowd was watching this shameful incident but nobody came forward to save the poor woman. I do agree with this argument of the reporters but I was forced to think that reporters were there to shoot the incident and pointing fingers on public not to say anything against it. But couldn't they come forward and save the poor woman? What kind of journalism is this?

According to Wikipedia journalism page "News is what the consensus of journalists determines it to be." So I want to know that what point reporters wanted to emphasized here: the girl was molested in public or nobody from crowd came forward to help her? Were the journalists with camera and mike were not a part of crowd? Or if they helped the victim coz, they might have lost a SPICY news item.

TRUE, journalists were able to raise this issue in state assembly but how could they let a person being tortured/molested for a money-making-TRP-booster news... And this is not the only incident. On many instances, I have seen that journalists reached before anyone else and engaged with their camera-and-mike work... But between the coverage they forgot to-send-someone-to-hospital or to-save-a-child or to-save-a-girl-from-public-humiliation...

I would like to make an appeal to everyone (including journalists) first to take necessary corrective action and then make a news out of it.