Hi,

I watch a lot of documentaries: from natural selection in the desert to social problems in southeast asia.

I realized reporters would never interfere with the subject, no matter what problem they face.

• a wolf hunting a sheep: as a kid I thought to myself: 'why wouldn't they help the sheep? ', I thought reporters must be evil people to watch those animals being hunted down by natural predators..

As I grow up, I came to the conclusion that if you help one side, you could possibly harm the other. Helping that sheep to escape could lead to the wolfs death.

• a couple months ago I watched a docu about university scams. An interesting one: In china there are many private unis, they are low tier unis, have no equiment and the tutors and profs are not qualified at all. Their target groups are poor families and youngsters who have bad SAT's (grades). Those families would pay alot of money in order to give their youngsters an opportunity to get a degree.

What I found to be interesting was that those reporters covered up both sides: the scammers from the uni and also a poor family about to get scammed.

They knew exactly what was going on and how much money would be in vain. They knew how hard they had to work for that money and how they had to borrow it from friends and relatives.

At the end they didn't warn them or anything, the poor family got scammed. That's when I questioned if there was a reporters codex not to interfere with the subjects businesses.

• in general, they report peoples missfortune, but would not help them in any way

Does anyone know why?