Hurricanes have been hitting the nation these past few weeks, and as they’ve struck, meteorologists have been out reporting in them.

While these aren’t the first storms for reporters to be in, it still has raised questions from viewers on social media.

Rosie O’Donnell tweeted “do we really need to watch reporters get pummeled by wind and rain?”

A New York Times article pointed out many reporters are standing outside while telling viewers to stay indoors or avoid the harsh weather conditions they’re reporting in.

While on camera, a CNN reporter mentioned he’d “be flying” if not for a steel rail nearby.

Even though these reporters sometimes appear to be struggling to deliver the news while in the wind and rain, they “insist that the visuals from the storms are essential in persuading people to take hurricane threats seriously and getting them to leave the area,” the New York Times said.

Is this hypocritical? The Spectator editorial board debated whether or not reporters should be standing outside in harsh weather conditions.

One speaker said the videos are always interesting to watch, but it may not be necessary to stay indoors “at all times.”

Another speaker agreed it was circumstantial.

“If you’re out in storms that are dangerous and death-imposing, that’s not a good decision,” they said.

Another speaker said reporters should be sent out into these conditions, as reporters are often sent into harsh conditions all over the world to report.

“Reporters go to war,” the member said. “Reporters go and they do all sorts of life-risking things because bringing people the news can sometimes be risky business, so honestly go stand in that rain.”

Another member brought up that without this footage, people in the Midwest or parts of the world without tropical storms or other specific harsh conditions wouldn’t know what any of it is like.

“I think it’s important to go have someone do that and showcase history in the making,” they said.

One speaker thought that reporting outside in these conditions while telling viewers to do the opposite made the reporters seem hypocritical.

The Spectatorial Editorial Board voted 4-4-1, voting in a tie between yes and no, with one member choosing to abstain from voting.