It would seem to be the perfect story for them. Media coverage can be the difference between life and death, says Cain, but who gets that coverage and who doesn't is kind of a crap shoot. Editors, reporters, and columnists around the country say that making such choices is an inexact science involving news judgment, timing, and luck, as well as the persistence of patients and their friends and relatives. A few media outlets, such as the Star Tribune in Minneapolis, have informal policies against covering individual need cases, preferring not to have to choose between similarly desperate patients, according to science editor Gordon Slovut. At the other end of the spectrum, COTA's David Cain agrees that the press should not have to choose, but argues instead that patients in need of money for life-saving surgery should always get coverage.
Most news organizations end up in between, making the hard choices.
There is no comfort level for me on this question. But I think it's the best policy. But the reality is that you can't do very many of them. It is a terrible lottery for media coverage that people are forced to enter. Arizona Republic columnist E.J. Montini notes that every time he writes about one case, he receives many more pleas.