A Journalistic Dilemma

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.

 The story about a 13-year-old girl, victim of cyber bullying was published but the neighbors, who were the bullies, were not identified. For this case I’d like to consider Mill’s utility principle and focus on the outcome. Pokin knew the neighbors admitted their part in the tragedy. Even though they were not being charged for any crime, they (as some would say) contributed to a death with their bullying. In this case the outcome and outrage of the audience, caused by the article, is what impresses me the most. If I was a journalist in this case I would have considered the SPJ code: Act Independently. Which states that journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know. But in this case, the right to know what exactly? I believe that the public had the right to know that the neighbors had admitted to sending cruel and taunting messages to the victim. Focusing on the outcome, since the neighbors were not identified, the readers were outraged. That outcome would’ve been different if the neighbors had been identified. Pokin’s reputation wouldn’t have suffered as much as it did. In this case, it is not about getting to the conclusion that the neighbor’s caused the death, but allowing the public know who was behind the bullying.