I believe that at the beginning the interview started out fairly well. We got a good description of the situation and the process of investigating the yellow rain. The interviewers went into great detail about where and how the leaves and twigs were tested for chemicals. When it came to Eng’s description of the event, they made it seem as though a child was telling a folktale. They seemed to brush off his account, especially because they never went into detail about Eng’s description of the yellow rain falling and people and animals falling ill simultaneously. Although that may have been untrue and the interviewers explanation of people being ill from other causes could definitely be true, they don’t make an effort to explain that as much as they made an effort to explain the research experts had done on the yellow rain. The reporters definitely had a responsibility to be sensitive to their sources. These were not people that were simply regurgitating facts. They were people that went through an extremely hard time and were trying to share what they knew. Whether or not this information was deemed inaccurate by experts should not make a difference in how Eng and his niece were treated. I think by going into the same detail as they did with the information the experts presented would have done angles story justice. Explaining every aspect thoroughly and making sure we knew why or why not the information was true and treating the two sources with the same respect as the experts would have made this podcast much more credible and respectable.