The article "A hoax, a suicide - a journalism
dilemma" by Malone about privacy and cyberbullying brings up an important red
flag to the society: when could a journalist cross the privacy line to publish
a story, even when this story could help people in the future?
The Chapter 14 "Violence and Sex" of the
book "Controversies in Media Ethics" by Gordon, Kittross, Merrill,
Babcock, Dorsher, discuss about violence and sex on TV, and about the influence
of these topics on the audience. I do not believe that all the violence in the
world happens because people watched first on TV, but I do believe that the TV
series and movies give the audience different lessons of how to be violent or
mean to others, and make people forget about the importance of the consequences
of these actions, and how little actions can cause big consequences.
Connecting Malone's article to the reading of
Chapter 14, I believe that people get so used to see so much violence on TV and
end up losing the sense of right or wrong. The article shows a clear example of
how simple actions can affect someone's life. Because of cyberbullying someone
committed suicide, and I’m sure this was not the first time this happened, but maybe
it was the first time a story was published about it.
 |
| Source: http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/11-facts-about-cyber-bullying# |
Now going back to Pokin's case, he had a sad story
on his hand, but at the same time the same story could save others people's
lives that could be suffering of cyberbullying the same way Megan Meier did. By
this decision I believe he was wise to publish the story to help people around
the world to deal with Cyberbullying, he applied Mill's Utility principle,
concerned about the outcome. He published a story that brings the best outcome
when you read that people in different countries use this story as case study
to avoid cyberbullying.
Pokin in his story decided to maintain the
neighbor's privacy, once again I agree with his decision. The point of his
story was not to reveal the identity of the responsible for the cyberbullying,
his decision was based on a story that could help others, the importance of
discuss about the risks of cyberbullying. His decision could be justified by
Bok's Ethical decision-making principle, thinking about how people would react,
what would be the response if people knew the neighbor's identity, and other
important points to make a decision.
On the other hand "The Post" identified
the neighbor causing a prosecution of this family related to the case. This
shows "The Post" were only concerned about the action, reminding me
of Kant's Categorical Imperative theory, showing no concern about the
author.
I would always go with the theory that offers less
harm, so I believe Bok's Ethical decision-making principle is the wisest to
apply in such a case like this, because seems to be fairer, causing less pain.
Another perspective that I could apply to this case would be the Gilligan's
ethics of care principle, because also seeks to minimize pain but in a more
personal way then Mill's principle.
 |
| Source: http://info.uknowkids.com/blog/bid/159164/Global-Perspective-on-Cyberbullying |
