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.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete