I am a retired first responder, 30+ years law enforcement, 16+ years fire/EMS. Both fields also included much SAR.

Over that period one deals with a lot of tragedy, so much so that too many emerge at the other end of such careers with PTSD.

Given that environment, the media are going to be there. That is their job. With very few exceptions I found the many photojournalists I dealt with to be able to balance professional responsibilities with compassion. In my LE career I worked a violent area with a great incidence of gang violence, sometimes against innocent young children related to opposing gang members, so as to affect the entire family. Most of my career was in command ranks in field operations, so I was, whenever I was on duty, the ranking member and thus the incident commander. One of my responsibilities, unless I had a PIO with me, was to liaison with the media. The regional media and I got accustomed to working together. In return for them not being intrusive, and letting my troops do their jobs, I made sure they were able to get their stills and video and would release what information I could on-camera. This mutual professional respect worked extremely well. I never considered the media to be the enemy. They knew it and responded in kind.

The responses of the several photojournalists on here are examples of the majority of photojournalists with whom I worked. Their information is excellent, and responsive to OP's inquiry. That is class and professionalism.

I cannot fathom the numerous other flippant non-responses. But in my short time as a member here, I see this same nature of posts in countless other threads.

It is unfortunate that once one learns their way around here, just seeing certain user names at the top of a post reliably indicates their credibility.