Yes. And if you send out information via a venue like Twitter, you might expect responses that are a norm for Twitter.
> And she spams it
@'ing someone alone doth not spam make, particularly on a medium like Twitter where the default expectation is that you have a broad audience and some of them are going to talk back to you when you tweet.
Characterizing that as "spam" is no more accurate than calling a reply on HN spam.
> with a fucking vulture-like request
The gratuitous profanity and vivid imagery associated with the aspersion here do both add a certain punch, but they're even more empty than the charge of spam.
> instead of leaving the line clear for assistance...
Twitter @'s & DMs are solidly asynchronous. "Line clear" doesn't apply. And if you're going to argue "well, sifting & skipping input takes precious time & attention," feel free, I guess, because you're simply arguing that an open Twitter account is the wrong medium for reaching out to people in an emergency.
And while it's pretty grim to see the process at work, journalists need to report news somehow. This is how we all end up with detailed news reports to read.