The Harmful Effects of 'Name Dropping' in Journalism

13-year-old Megan Meier from St. Louis committed suicide due to a series of cyber bullying messages that she received on her MySpace page. This story ignited an uproar within the city not just because of how tragic it was, but because the attackers remained nameless in the first published news article.

Suburban Journal writer Steve Pokin wrote a heart-wrenching story about Megan’s death, detailing the pain and suffering that she felt as well as the turmoil and grief that her parents, Ron and Tina Meier experienced.

Readers wrote various anger-infused messages on The Journal’s website, going as far as calling Pokin a “coward” and accusing him of not being a “real journalist” simply because he did not reveal names in the story or on the website.

In Pokin’s defense, I would say that he was ethically justified in his decision to maintain the neighbor’s privacy because of one word: respect. Chapter 6 in Controversies of Media Ethics talks about how crucial it is for a journalist to respect others regardless of the medium, the message, or the messengers. “The “harm” that those in mass communications are most likely to cause generally is not physical. Rather it involves a disruption of the psychological space that people need to live their lives,” (Pg. 220). As shameful and hateful as those neighbor’s messages were, they still had a right to their privacy and were entitled to the respect from any journalist who covered the story.

If Pokin ignored the “minimize harm” rule and chose to identify the attackers, then he would be putting the three women in serious danger. Chapter 6 also points out the value in a journalist deciding whether or not making someone look bad is actually a necessity for the content of a story (Pg. 221). Did the readers of The Journal really need to know who the culprits were in order to fully comprehend and absorb the emotion from the story? The answer is no.

While The Journal chose not to indicate who the neighbors were, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch did not hesitate in disclosing the identity of the neighbors. The Post’s decision can be ethically justified through the principle of honesty. “Indeed, truth telling is basic to all forms of human communication; without it, others cannot trust the information they receive and therefore cannot confidently base their own ideas or actions on that information” (Pg. 218). 

A journalist’s first rule in their code of ethics is to “seek the truth and report it,” not just half or most of it…but all of it. Although the neighbors were not charged with anything in relation to the suicide case, the truth still remains that they did in fact send extremely hurtful messages to Megan Meier through cyberspace. 

The writers at the Post believed that piece of information to be not only truthful, but also significant to their story as well. By the Post including the names, the readers can fully trust the source and make an informed decision on cyber bullying and the serious impact it can have on children and adolescents.

Both of the newspapers made tough decisions on whether or not to include the names of the neighbors and while I do think both consisted of some sort of ethical value, I do find The Journal’s ethical justification more compelling. Pokin made the tougher decision out of the two and had to endure some harsh consequences from the audience. But guess what? He was able to tell a true story whole heartedly without sacrificing his subject’s privacy. He presented the public with what they deserved to know, but still showed respect to the subjects he was writing about.

Another alternative for this case would be to use Mill’s Utility principle (consequence of the action) and to not identify any specific names. But instead, use other identifying factors like: gender, the number of people, and the ages. Identifying those things at least helps to paint a more vivid picture for the reader while ensuring the safety of the neighbors. Mill’s Utility principle would ask which consequence is worse? Pokin getting called names over the Internet or the neighbors getting physically attacked and possibly killed by an outraged reader? 

I personally think the latter is much, much worse.

Keep Calm: Target Knows More About You Than You Think (Thanks to Data Mining)

The article, “How Target Figured Out a Teen Girl was Pregnant Before her Father Did,” talks about how retail companies like Target, study their customer’s shopping patterns so that they can send them personalized coupons based on their interests.

After analyzing data on its female consumers, Target Statistician Andrew Pole was able to identify which women were possibly pregnant based on how much scent-free lotion, soap, and vitamins the woman was buying. So what did Target do once they found out one of their female customers was most likely carrying a “bun in their oven?” They sent out coupons on diapers, maternity clothes, and strollers of course.

Imagine trying to keep your pregnancy a secret from your husband or boyfriend because you are waiting for the “right time” to tell him. Before you can get your speech together, in comes the bright and bold “Congrats, You’re Pregnant!” coupon booklet in the mail. Umm can you say…awkward??

In a way, Universalism supports Target’s data mining approach because collecting data from customers has become a sort of culture within the retail industry. Target isn’t the only store that collects data. More and more corporations are finding creative ways to incorporate collecting customer’s spending habits and inputting it into their databases. 

When one shops at a store and choose to use a debit/credit card at the register, they are basically giving that company automatic consent to organize your personal information into their data management system.

I don’t think this kind of data mining causes ethical concern because what the stores end up using customer’s information for is something positive. They want to provide their customers with related products that they might be interested in. They want to provide loyal customers with useful coupons and ways to stay connected to the store’s sale events. Customers never want to miss a good sale, right?

While I believe that data mining is harmless, I do believe that targeted marketing can be ethically tricky for different reasons. For example, a customer may feel like a company is imposing on their privacy. Like the target marketing geared towards pregnant woman, yes a woman might appreciate the fact that she can buy diapers at 40 percent off, but she might also feel violated at the same time. 

After all, pregnancy is a sensitive subject. Paranoid thoughts might creep in and she could start to wonder, “Just how much information does this store actually have on me and why?”

Looking through the lens of Aristotle, Target can use the Golden Mean to defend their target marketing practices. Target as the actor chose to collect consumer data and make conclusions from it so that they can help customers save money on products that they will actually use, thus making the customer happy.

Sometimes sending coupons can backfire big time and piss off a customer instead of making them happy. For example, in the Target article, a father becomes outraged and demands to talk to a manager after finding coupons on baby clothes and cribs in the mail that is intended for his teenage daughter. I think the manager fulfilled his ethical obligation perfectly because according to Ross’s Pluralistic Values, he utilized one of the duties – reparation. Even though it wasn’t that manager’s direct fault, he still tried to correct the harmful act by not just apologizing once, but twice.

I don’t think Target’s decision to ad mix their coupon books to avoid “creeping people out” is unethical because they wanted to eliminate the embarrassing feeling that women were experiencing when they opened their coupons and saw nothing but baby items. Like Mill’s Valuation Hedonism says, creating a sense of pleasure is more ethical than creating a sense of pain. At least the coupon book being centered on different items will put the woman more at ease.

These practices fit within the Principles and Practices forAdvertising Ethics because Principle 1 is about serving the public with a common objective truth. Target collects data from their customers to find out what their customers buying interests are so that they can better serve them. Target’s practices fits with every principle except for one.

Principle 6 says “Advertisers should never compromise consumers’ personal privacy in marketing communications, and their choices as to whether to participate in providing their information should be transparent and easily made.” Judging from a women’s reaction on either being “creeped out” or totally surprised on Target knowing about her pregnancy and even what trimester she was in proves that their marketing practice was not transparent enough or quite frankly--transparent at all.