The article: A hoax, a suicide… a
journalistic dilemma, is about a 13-year-old girl who
committed suicide after receiving cruel messages online. She was cyber-bullied
by Josh, a (fake) boy, created by her neighbors. Pokin, a journalist for the Journal
wrote the story but didn’t reveal the neighbor’s names, this caused an outrage
and more, amongst readers.
In Chapter 10 of our book, Gordon begins his point of view by expressing that: “Beyond the broad right to be let alone, privacy is an important concept for anyone who respects the dignity and autonomy of fellow human beings.” If we go back to the Plaisance reading, ethics is seen as “dealing with finding the best or most right solution among many less-than-satisfying options.” Keeping in mind that ethics is about the deliberation, the thought process rather than the final decision, we can consider that Pokin, his editor and lawyer made an ethical decision. They considered that there were no arrests, no charges filed, no civil suit, a juvenile involved and that there was no clarity on who was sending the messages before publishing the story. They accounted the facts that they knew.
If we take into consideration Kant’s
Categorical Imperative and focus on the action, then we can say that by maintaining
the neighbor’s privacy, Pokin and the Journal were protecting the neighbor’s
identity to prevent them from being attacked. Pokin didn’t take advantage of
the information he’d obtained, just to “sell” a story or to make the Journal
more popular by revealing the neighbors to the community. With his action,
Pokin respected the neighbor’s privacy, since no charges were officially
charged. Even though his material didn’t satisfy the public’s curiosity, it’s
content was still true. As a journalist he delivered a story about a girl and
the fact that she committed suicide. Omitting the neighbor’s names does not
make the story false. Looking at “A Code of Ethics for Journalists from the
Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics” (found in the Plaisance
reading), I find that one of the key directives mentions: “Minimize harm”. To
minimize harm means that ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and
colleagues as human beings deserving of respect. So Pokin’s actions minimized
harm and respected the neighbor’s privacy, I believe that Pokin and the Journal
were ethically justified.
According to the article, by the time the
neighbors were identified some false information had been added and by that
time the usual protections about naming names had been trampled. Because the
story was going fast and far, there was a misrepresentation of the truth. By
identifying the neighbor, the Post was out to correct the false information and
inform their audience.
I’d like to take a moment and think about
Ross’s Pluralistic Values and his idea that moral decision-making sometimes
requires us to reflect upon the past and act out of a sense of duty rather than
focus on the outcome.
Ross’s Duties:
1. Fidelity 3.
Gratitude 5. Justice 7. Non-Maleficence
2. Reparation 4. Beneficence 6.
Self-Improvement
According to Ross, in any given
situation, any number of these duties can exist and moral dilemmas arise when
these duties come into conflict with one another. At that point the person
would have to decide which obligation has more weight. In this case, the Post
decided to identify the neighbors who were “cyber bullies”, in reparation to
the previous story from the Journal. By the time the Post identified the
neighbors, some false information had been added to the story. Reparation may
be the way to tell the story right and give the audience the complete
information that they seek.
Of the two ethical justifications
discussed, I find the first one more compelling. The reason is because the
thought process was more extensive. The situation was analyzed, versus just
publishing a story for the full benefit (or profit) of the paper. It was more
carefully crafted (skillfully written as described in the article) even though it
caused outrage.
![]() |
By message or texts, these words hurt as much as when said in person |
Any type of bullying is wrong. A bully
takes advantage of others and believes the other person is weaker than them and
will not fight back. Victims of bullies usually become depressed and have low self-esteem.
When this bullying takes place online, it is more difficult to track the
culprit, because as seen in this case (article), the culprits were hiding
behind a false profile. The outcome of this case was very tragic. I believe
that the people (victim’s neighbors) responsible for the bullying never really
knew the extent of the damage they would cause, but were brave enough to
confess their part in the story.
![]() |
Parents should talk to their kids about cyber bullies. By knowing what is going, parents can help their kids. |