A 13 year old child is dead, someone’s daughter. The victim of a vicious prank: cyber-bullying over the Internets. In such a case what is the role of the journalist? Is it the journalist’s job to shed light on all? Is it the journalist’s job to withhold information? Well let’s see, I’m sitting here in my office at Suburban Journals of St. Charles County, let me reach under my desk here and pull out my Potter Box and we’ll run this issue through it.
First of all the facts of the case are self-evident. After being psychologically abused and bullied Megan Meier, 13 years old, hung herself in her closet. The ‘person’ doing the bullying turned out to be neighbors down the street and not Josh Evans who was created by those neighbors to torment her. Obviously Megan’s identity is known as is that of her parents. What about those evil neighbors? As a journalist doing my job I know who they are but should I release their names in my story?
I have some competing values going on here. One chief concern is that my story be as accurate as possible. By leaving out information that could be construed as less than accurate. Then again what purpose does publishing the names of the perpetrators serve? There has to be dignity here and I reserve that dignity for Megan’s memory and for her grieving parents. Therefore I believe it is sufficient to release the story without the names of perpetrators.
I’m taking a stand on principle here! After all, and I quote from our textbook (Media Ethics:Issues & Cases, by Patterson and Wilkins) on page 10, “Kant’s ethical theory is based on the notion that it is in the act itself, rather than the person who acts, where moral force resides.” OK, so maybe I’m tweaking Kant a bit but still I want the point of my story to be the horrible outcome of the act of bullying itself. Besides, I did hold off on releasing this story waiting for the authorities to act and now they’re telling me that there are no grounds on which to charge those perps, and besides, one of them is a minor as well.
I really believe that if I release the names now it will suck all the oxygen out of this article and the perpetrators will become the focus of the story, not the act that produced the story to begin with and Megan and her family will be lost in all the vitriol.
That brings me to my loyalties. My ultimate loyalty lies with the truth. It is paramount that the real story be told with as little editing as possible. Does releasing the perps names or not releasing them have any bearing at all upon the truth of the story? As I mentioned above, I believe, it would only serve to distract from the story. My loyalty is to the story and to it being told as truthful as possible. Therefore I will release this story without mentioning the neighbors by name.
I can’t believe that guy down at Suburban Journals of St. Charles County. He puts out this fantastic story that has reached around the world but he doesn’t put out the whole story! He leaves out what I think is the most important part of the story - the perps names. Here, let me grab my Potter Box out of my file cabinet here and I’ll show you why I fixed that problem.
The first thing is the facts. They are out there. This young girl, Megan, had a falling out with a neighbor. That kid, with her mother and another person, decided to strike back with a powerful weapon: self-perception. They create a young male and called him Josh Evans who took a liking to Megan on MySpace. Once they had her hooked they took ‘Josh’ to a dark place and started turning the psychological screws. They turned them so hard that Megan, who was on prescribed anti-depressants to begin with, hung herself in a closet. Those are the facts so let’s move on to values.
For me as a journalist the most important value of a story is its honesty and authenticity. If I know the facts then it is my duty to report those facts, all of them. If I knowingly hold back any important information from the story then I have injured it by not being forthcoming and fully representing the truth. I know the names of the perps and I believe those names are integral to the authenticity of the story. So, I’m determined to set things right and make sure the whole story is put out in front of the public.
Before you think I’m too hasty let share with you the principle that is guiding me here. I’ll I quote from our textbook (Media Ethics:Issues & Cases, by Patterson and Wilkins) on page 10, “Kant’s ethical theory is based on the notion that it is in the act itself, rather than the person who acts, where moral force resides.”
The perps had committed a heinous act against this young child which drove her to suicide and the authorities, the DA and police, claimed they were helpless in bringing them to justice. So I’m the one who is going to have to act if there is to be any justice in this case and I’m going to act out of my loyalties.
My loyalty is to the veracity of the story and to the public good. The community has been harmed and could be subject to further harm if these perps are allowed to go anonymously unscathed. I know who you are, Lori Drew (and your minor daughter) and Ashley Grills. Now wait, it’s not like I’m the first one to release your names. After all CNN blew the whistle when they released the police reports and the blogosphere lit up because your names were on it. I’m just setting the newspaper world right by finally publishing your names in the context of a news story. My loyalty is to the truth and truth demands that the whole story be told for the public good.
Both of these approaches treats with reverence the issues of transparency, harm, justice, autonomy, privacy, and community. They just approach these issues from decidedly different directions. The Suburban leans more towards accommodating the needs of the family of the victim. After all it was the aunt, Vicki Dunn, that contacted Pokin when she learned he was doing an article on cyber-bullying. This was about a year after Megan had committed suicide. Foremost in Pokin’s mind was also protecting the privacy of the minor daughter of Drew. The other approach felt that public knowledge trumped privacy. in a sense community was chosen over the individual as this point of view believes that justice is best served by full disclosure (releasing the names) to the public.
In thinking about this case (again) I believe that I would have to come down on the side of the Post and release the names. By not releasing the names I become an accomplice in an immoral act. Since the authorities could not identify any laws by which the perpetrators could be charged it falls to media to provide an avenue for justice. The only way that can be accomplished is through publishing the names of the persons (adults) who perpetrated this ‘crime.’
The good of the many outweighs the good of the few. The good that came out of this story was enactment of laws at the local and federal levels concerning cyber-bullying. However, I recognize that even if the perpetrators names were not released this would have been the most likely outcome of this story.
The last question has shades of PIPA and SOPA. I can hear the reps of FaceBook and MySpace now, “Badges! We don’t need no stinkin’ badges!” The ultimate question concerning the Internets that is all inclusive of media rights to cyber-bullying is: who is/are the police? What entity will carry the authority to regulate the various services? Given the natural anarchic quality of the Internets there will be the inevitable push back against any semblance of setting boundaries on the web.
Obviously the MPAA and RIAA and others like them feel it is the responsibility of the IPs to police their servers. If that model had been verified by the passage of SOPA/PIPA then it is a short step to say that MySpace and FaceBook have a moral obligation through established law to police their networks and intervene in cases of cyber-bullying.
Of course this raises other issues as well regarding privacy. Does FaceBook and MySpace have the right to go poking their noses into my postings? Oh wait, did I sign that over when I clicked “accept” on that privacy agreement thingy? Who ever reads those damn things anyway?
Still, this goes to the question of corporate responsibility for a product that is used by the general public. If FaceBook and MySpace are going to be making money from those products then they have a responsibility to see that those products cause no harm. Clearly, in the case of Megan Meier and her family, great harm was caused. If that death could have been averted by some mechanism that flagged cyber-bulling then, yes, FaceBook and MySpace have a moral obligation to intervene in such cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment