We learn from our text about Sissela Bok’s model of ethical decision-making. Revolving around two primary premises, the first is that we must have empathy for the people involved in ethical decisions and than the second that we must strive to maintain social trust. I think this is a perfect way to break down the case of article writer Steve Polkin and the Suburban Journal deciding not to include the names of the accused in their reporting on a cyberbullying case.
To break down Boks theory with this case in mind, one would focus on the following three points. 1. Refer to your conscience about the rightness of the act – here Polkin should view both sides of the story for those involved, having empathy not just for the wronged party, but also keeping in mind that the accused deserves a certain level of empathy as well. 2. Seek expert advice for alternatives – so Polkin should discuss with his editor, or a professional mentor, for their opinion on the matter, and/or refer to theoretical teachings on such cases to learn how others view the case. 3. Discuss the matter with all parties involved – here Polkin would do well to gain the perspective from a societal point of view by discussing with different parties involved and learning about their approach to the case. If Polkin followed these steps, he would be in a better position to argue his decision about withholding the names of the accused from his articles. As a writer, Polkin’s business is to share news worthy stories without sharing his own personal opinion/POV, so that the reader is allowed to determine their own feelings/POV without bias. In the reporting about the cyberbullying case, Polkin did just that – he told the story without publishing the names of the accused because printing the names wasn’t newsworthy – after all the accused were not charged with a crime, and naming them wouldn’t bring any further depth to the reporting of the story.
When it comes to the writers and editors at the Post, who one week later reported on the same cyberbullying case and decided to include the names of the accused, I am reminded of Utilitarianism. This ethical perspective allows for ethical decision making from a standpoint of the greatest good for the greatest number. Here withholding the names of the accused only benefits the accused, while sharing the names with the public serves to warn society of the actual people accused of bad behaviors which allows society to be more aware of who is a threat.
Each paper in this case came to a different conclusion about what information was news worthy to share. Earlier in this post I discussed two different ethical decision making theories that could be applied to the case from each papers POV. Now I’d like to look at them both with communitarianism in mind. Our text defines communitarianism as, “Communitarians assert that when issues are political and social, community interests trump individual interests but does not trample them. Communitarianism focuses on the outcome of individual ethical decisions analyzed in light of their potential to impact society.” I think its important to note that both papers had society in mind when they made their decision, for the Suburban Journal, it reported a story of cyberbullying and didn’t include the names of the accused because they were not newsworthy since they weren’t legally charged with a crime – which technically is a case for what’s fit to share with society from a print media standpoint. The Post, on the other hand, believed that society deserved to be informed of the names of the accused, in order for the story to be truly transparent, and so that the community could be better informed.
From a journalistic POV, I think that the Polkin did the more ethical thing by not including the names of the accused in his story. It serves no propose print media wise to name them when they were not charged with a crime. Society wants to point the finger, and place blame when they learn about such troubling cases like that of a young girl who takes her own life because of bullying – but until laws are enacted around these crimes, its not justified to crucify people for being idiot morons who taunt and terrorize their peers. I can understand how hard it must have been for Polkin to make such a decision, because its extremely difficult to put aside ones natural instinct for retribution or justice against people who have done wrong in your eyes. I think that the Post, cowed to public opinion- they published a week after the Journal, and so I’m sure were somewhat swayed by the public opinion.
In my opinion, social networks take out the element of personal connection that is required to realize true feelings. It’s easier and easier to push buttons (literally and figuratively) without realizing or understanding the emotional consequences behind them because social networks and cyberspace take away the comprehension gained from face-to-face interaction. However, I don’t think that it’s the networks ethical obligation to intervene in those cases though. I think that it’s a personal obligation that we have to ourselves and to society to act ethically, as well as to know when to turn away from others that don’t. Many of the theories that we learn about in our text talk about the impact ethical decisions have on society, and how we have to take that into account when making ethical decisions. Social networks policing cyberspace would fly in the face of many of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment