There are so many questions to ask the reporter and the editor in this situation. No matter how slow of a news day it might have been, this is not material that a reputable publication should publish. And why are the owners not identified? Are they even a couple? In addition, publishing a story with so many flaws doesn’t help the situation either. The eagle never “satisfied its hunger” with the dog, it snatched it away. I have no idea what “damnendest” means and the husband’s reaction is hilarious to say the least.
The story could have been more respectable with some more comments from those involved. Witnesses gave reports about the situation so why not add some comments from them? Some comments from the woman owner would have helped even more. Maybe she was in a bad state so the reporter didn’t ask more, but it’s a dog, not a family member. I’m sure she could have provided some quotes other than the grammatically incorrect, “Oh, my God.” As for the husband, knowing why he could care less about the dog is the real story here. He must have detested that dog if he’s grinning and thrusting his hands.
Besides the flaws in the story, the issue of not identifying the couple is most important because for all the reader knows, this story could just be made up. Sure you have a gas station attendant’s name, but even if he is a gas station attendant, he could be someone you know who would agree to witnessing the event. The story simply lacks credibility.