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.