After listening to the interview and reading the articles, they seem like night and day. Both sources prove that the interview was insensitive at certain points. However, after listening to the interview, you get the sense of just how emotional Eng and Kao Kalia Yang were.

I do not believe Robert Krulwich actions were justified because he needed both sides of the story. There have been plenty of interviews where there are opposing views, and the interviewer manages to remain neutral.

I do not believe they were fair and balanced in their reporting because Kao Kalia Yang is quoted saying the primary reason she chose to accept the interview is so the “story would be heard and the Hmong deaths would be documented and recognized.” It proved to be the complete opposite and complete chaos.

Yes there is a responsibility to be sensitive to their sources. There are ways you can get the truth without belittling your source and using an aggressive tone. The story could have been handled differently by the manner in which the questions were asked, specifically the tone and interruptions during the interview. Once the interviewer realized the sources were becoming uncomfortable and the shakiness of her voice, he should have ended it or changed the direction of the interview. I agree that there was too much time spent on criticizing the sources, instead of listening.