I would not agree to print a second story. The reporter followed and the paper printed a story that is very relevant, and nothing the reporter did was unethical. Instead of demanding a follow up story that has no point, the school officials and parents should use this story to address the problem. There is a lot of relevance to the story, and that should be embraced. The story reports the fact that the program is not working as well as it probably should be. By printing the first story, the school and program can take steps to ensure it is more effective instead of ignoring the problem. By printing a second story, it would discredit the first story and its facts in a way. Also, the story does not encourage kids to buy drugs; it prints the facts, which is a newspaper’s job. If the reporter was able to find enough information to produce an accurate, factual, unbiased story about how the program is ineffectual, then there is no reason to run a second story.