Please close the door; I have the right to a little bit of privacy.

Within the first few lines of the story “Online harassment-A hoax, a suicide — a journalistic dilemma” by Roy Malone, we learned the victims name, how she died and intimate details of what drove her to take her own life. What we didn’t learn was who was responsible for this tragedy. 

My first reaction was to agree with Pokin and the Journal. The neighbors were not charged and therefore why should their names be smeared in the public sphere? Their safety is also of major concern. It was exactly the “vigilante-like outrage” that took place once their names were revealed that the Journal might have been trying to avoid. 

But were these people wrong in expressing outrage? After all, why should the neighbors be protected when they (allegedly) did not care about Megan’s physical and mental safety? This might have been what the Post had in mind when they released the neighbors’ names – justice was being served, if not in the courtroom than in the media. 

Mill’s Utility Principle could, in my understanding, actually be used to argue both sides of this story and the ways in which it was reported. 

In summary, this principle focuses on the outcome, on the consequences of the action. “The consequences of actions are important in deciding whether they are ethical. In the utilitarian view, it may be considered ethical to harm one person for the benefit of the larger group.” (Patterson, Philip (2010-07-21). Media Ethics: Issues and Cases (Page 10). Humanities & Social Science. Kindle Edition.) 

Similarly, the Communitarianism theory tells us that, “Community interests trump individual interest in quest for social justice.” (Bindig, COM503-Ethics-CheatSheet) 

In this respect, for the Post, it was the community’s need for “justice” that trumped the privacy and safety of the accused. 

However, our text also tells us that “In application, utilitarianism has a way of puncturing entrenched self-interest, but when badly applied, it can actually promote social selfishness.” (Page 12 Kindle Edition.) In a society where you’re innocent until proven guilty, was it selfish of the community to seek out the neighbors name and for the Post (and others) to publish it? 

After thinking this through and applying several ethical principles, I have to side with the Post for publishing the neighbor’s names. It is a journalist’s obligation to provide the facts of the story for their reader. The Journal chose to share some of the facts and withhold others based on their own ethics. I believe that it is the journalist’s duty to present the facts and society’s duty to take those facts and formulate an opinion based on their own ethics, morals, values and loyalty. I think the Journal would have been better off not printing the story altogether, rather than withholding such an important fact.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Meier's interview with CNN. Now tell me the sense that it makes to withhold the neighbor's name, but show a video clip of their home? Anyone who lives in the area would identify this immediately.