The article “Should journalists carry Narcan? For some in Philadelphia, the answer is yes,” explores the idea of journalists carrying Narcan on their person and intervening in an overdose. The author, Jillian Bauer- Reese, interviews several journalists who have experience with this debate. Mike Newall, a city columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer, had his own personal experience when reporting and now carries Narcan. He claims, “I’m a columnist, so maybe I’m free to raise my hand and say, ‘I am in favor of saving lives…I’m not a first responder; I’m a columnist, I’m a news reporter. I don’t walk around like, ‘Hey, how many people can I Narcan today?’” On the other hand, reporter Sonia Nazario criticized her photographer’s ethics for intervening and buying a family that they were reporting on groceries after watching them eat scarcely at dinner. She claims, “I think what was beaten into me early as a reporter was you don’t intervene or change a story that you’re writing about.”
SPJ President, Rebecca Baker says, “ Using Narcan is similar to performing CPR or the Heimlich maneuver—if a journalist is trained in these life-saving procedures, they would, could, and should save someone in distress…This is simply a different type of rescue.” This statement really resonated with me, I don’t think that saving a life is synonymous with being subjective and biased, I think it’s being moral. I think that when storytelling, journalists should remain objective but not inhumane. Ever since I started my journalism classes, we’ve been taught to be objective, we’re supposed to detach ourselves from our stories. I think this idea is out of date and I think modern journalism is more open to the journalists becoming more invested in our stories.