Friday, February 3, 2012

The Cyberbullying Dilemma


The Cyberbullying Dilemma

Chapter 1, Page 4, Introduction to Media Ethics by Patterson & Wilkins
“Ethics begin when elements within a moral system conflict.”

Cyberbullying Research Center @ www.cyberbullying.us
The definition of cyberbullying:
willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, & other electronic devices.”

Bullying of all sorts is most prevalent during adolescence, and cyber bullying is no exception.  However, the Malone article has the added twist of an adult being an active participant in the bullying of a middle school neighbor who eventually committed suicide. Statistically, bullying appears to peak during adolescence though research is now revealing it is also prevalent in the adult population. As a result, journalists are routinely confronted by the dilemmas surrounding the issue of how to report these incidents. 

In 2006 Steve Pokin, of The Suburban Journals of St. Charles County, Missouri, reported on the tragic suicide of local teenager, Megan Meier.  Megan took her life in response to an onslaught of destructive messages sent to her MySpace page.  The message that pushed her over the edge was, “The world would be a better place without you.”  Cruel, destructive, harmful, whatever you call it, the end was tragic.  Pokin’s job was to tell the story.

Pokin had conflicting responsibilities.  No matter what his personal feelings, his job was to investigate and then provide accurate, timely, and complete information regarding the story.  Simultaneously, he had to consider his employer, the newspaper, his audience, the readers, the Meier family, and finally, the perpetrators of the bullying.  Pokin looked to his editor and the newspaper’s attorney to provide guidance on what should be published.  Pokin seemed to use the steps listed in the Multidimensional Ethical Reasoning and Inquiry Task Sheet  (MERITS).  In seeking help, it appears that he looked at the Values, Framework, Stakeholders, and his own responsibilities as a journalist.  He also met the Code of Ethics for journalists, as paraphrased in Pliaisance, chapter 2: "Seek truth and report it, Minimize harm, Act independently, and Be accountable."  So what did he do? 

In the first of many articles, on November 11, 2006, Pokin provided clear and sensitive coverage of the bullying and harassment Meagan suffered, and the tragic results of that onslaught.  What he didn’t provide, and the what public wanted, was the name, or names, of the perpetrator(s). Readers were a combination of horrified and furious.  The story hit a nerve, a deep nerve, and people wanted someone to blame.  Pokin and his newspaper were easy targets and they took a solid hit.

Reporters seek to answer five basic questions every time, “Who, what, when, where, why, and how.”   This time, the answers to those questions were not simple, and revealing those answers could do further harm.  Additionally, since there were no charges pending, the revelations might create legal problems for the newspaper, jeopardize police and FBI investigations, impede prosecution, harm the under-age perpetrator, create a “blood-letting, revenge seeking mentality” that could spiral out of control, and finally, personally, it could make or break Steve Pokin’s professional reputation.

Ethically, Pokin followed standards and codes of conduct drafted for his profession.   He could have justified a decision to publish the perpetrators’ names.  PRSA’s standards dictate that practitioners  Protect and advance the free flow of accurate and truthful information.”   And the Journalists’ code includes "Seek truth and report it.”   However, Pokin’s decision not to publish the names of the participating bullies is equally defensible but perhaps marginally more persuasive.  Why?  The PRSA’s standard includes ”Protect confidential and private information.” And the Journalists’ Code of Conduct includes ”Minimize harm” and “Be accountable." and MERITS’ position that professionals consider “the Values, Framework, Stakeholders, and journalistic responsibilities.”  

Pokin was in a lose-lose position.  He was going to be “damned” either way.  In this case, he had two things going for him, his editor’s support and the knowledge that the story was NOT going to end with the first issue.  It is hard to say whether he anticipated the firestorm that followed, but for four more years he continued to write about Megan’s tragic death and the repercussions of the Social Media bullying and harassment that led to her death.  One could argue, that no matter how dreadful the content, this was a really good story.

In the end, the court of public opinion, and the legal system, had the final word.  Pokin continued to follow the story through the courts and until a verdict was reached.  A compilation of his articles can be found at: http://www.stltoday.com/suburban-journals/stcharles/some-of-pokin-s-stories-about-megan-meier-s-suicide/collection_04ba6500-017a-11e1-9cac-0019bb30f31a.html

The follow up, today, should be Pokin reporting on the growing impact of Social Media on individuals, organizations, and legislation.  Should the providers, though “just” a conduit, feel an ethical responsibility toward their users?  YES!  Emphatically, YES!  Organizations are making millions, billions, unknown, sums of money and garnering power that is unimaginable, and largely invisible, as a result of the users and their networks.  With power comes responsibility.  Onlookers silently contribute when bullying occurs but providers create the venue for cyberbullying abuse.  Yes, they should feel responsible and yes, they should be held accountable.


1 comment: