(source)
Social Media has become a complete sensation in these first
years of the twenty-first century. It has been a way to connect with people in
ways we have never before been able. This includes the good, the bad and the
ugly. While many use the growing numbers of sites to interact with family and
friends to enhance their relationships, others have seen ways into taking
others down.
Megan Meier was 13 years old when she took her own life due
to the effects of social media and what has now become known as cyber-bullying.
She thought that an online stranger-turned-friend, “Josh,” was showing an
intimate interest in her. Then, the messages became nasty. The messages were so
cruel and effected Megan so greatly that she saw no way out. Turns out, a
former friend of Megan with whom she encountered a falling out, partnered with
her mother and a family acquaintance to create this cyber-profile to
specifically target the young girl.
(source)
When word spread about the cyber-bullying suicide,
newspapers approached the story very differently. The Suburban Journals of St. Charles County gave the specifics of the
case without revealing the identities of the people behind the profile. Without
any specific criminal charges filed and the nature of the people involved
(including a minor), the paper cautiously decided to keep the culprits
anonymous. The public turned nasty commenting and E-mailing the paper. Public
opinion said the paper and its reporters were not being proper journalists and
a large part of the truth and story being left out went against journalistic
standards. The public wanted to know who to chastise. The public wanted to be a
part of the shaming and punishment.
(source)
Despite public opinion, the Suburban Journals was justified in their right to shy away from
revealing the names of any guilty parties. If we observe Gilligan’s Ethics of Care,
we know that all individuals are interdependent for achieving their own
interests, and those particularly vulnerable to our choices and their outcomes
deserve extra consideration based on their level of vulnerability and
affectedness to one’s choices and no one else’s. The contextual details of the
situation are especially important to safeguard and promote the specific
interests of those involved. As we measure the various stages of human
maturity, we understand society and our choices based on principles, social
order and ultimately our cultural expectations.
The unnamed teenage girl wanted to see revenge. Her mother
and acquaintance (personal employee) wanted to help. They saw a means of living
out their own selfish expectations of watching a young girl suffer. While the
public understands that the people behind the “Josh” profile should be punished
for their actions, they only want to see them suffer for personal justice. They
would punish them not to make the situation right, but to feel that end result
was more along the lines of the “eye for an eye” mentality. The Journal did not see how reporting the
story with the names of the guilty parties would bring justice to either side
of the problem. The law would have been the deciding factor on how those people
should have been punished, not the paper. Either way, it would have
unfortunately never have brought Megan back.
Unlike the Journal, the
St. Louis Post-Dispatch DID reveal
the names of those involved. As is the case with all ethical dilemmas, either
side of the argument can be debated. While it can be said that the Journal was within their ethical rights
to keep the names of those involved out of the story, the Post was not wrong in any way to reveal who they were. We can see
Aristotle’s Golden Mean being used in this case. Trying to find a middle ground
between right and wrong, the Post knew
that reporting the story would not bring any lawful justice to the incident.
They also knew that pressure to protect the yet-to-be-convicted was a moot
point. The middle ground was to let the information speak for itself as humanly
unbiased as possible.
Of course we can also use Bok’s Ethical Decision Making
model to make decisions on story like this in the future. Unfortunately, as
long as the medium exists, people will use it for negative reasons. As much as we would like to curb anything like
suicide, especially from cyber-bullying, there is a good chance it may
continue. In the future, we have to decide how best to approach the situation
when reporting it to the public. Ethical Decision Making will help us weigh the
pros and cons of the situation. First, we must consult our own conscience, then
we must seek alternatives. Ultimately, we must ask ourselves how our actions of
reporting a story will affect others. It is only then that we can make a
decision that is as morally just as possible.
(source)
No comments:
Post a Comment