Source Click here
After reading the article “A hoax, a suicide- a journalistic dilemma” by Roy Malone, Pokin and the Journal were ethically justified in maintaining the neighbor’s privacy because they wanted to shield the neighbors from the outrage of the public. When looking at ethical principles, Mill’s utility Principle focuses on the outcome and that is what Pokin and the Journal did. Pokin and the Journal called it “a judgment call” to protect the neighbors from the public. If they had revealed the names who knows what could have happened? Although the names were later revealed, by them not revealing the names right after the incident it gave the public time to calm down (a little bit).
While I agree with Pokin and the Journal, I’d like to make a case for why the Post was ethically
justified in identifying the neighbor.
To me the Post revealed the neighbor as a safety issue. They wanted the
other parents and kids in that neighborhood to be aware of who their neighbor
was. It’s like we hear often, sexual offenders are required to register as
sexual offenders so that community they live in is aware. It’s the same thing here;
the Post was concerned about the ethical principle of communitarianism (community
interests trump individual interest in quest for social justice).
Source Click here
Of the two ethical justifications discussed above, I find
the first (maintaining the neighbor’s identity) to be more compelling. I agree
with both equally (maintaining and identifying) but I can see why maintaining that
information in this case can be more efficient. As the public, we tend to want
to take matters into our own hands sometimes, and if the neighbor had been revealed
right after the incident I believe an outrage could of broken out and harm
could’ve been done. If something had happened we’d then be feel responsible and
hold Pokin and the Journal
responsible, which wouldn’t be fair. I agree that things like this that affect
the community should be made known to everyone, but I also believe in letting
the law take over (even if we don’t agree with their decision). And at the end
of the day, we should also respect the families of both the victim and the
neighbor.
Source Click here
Another alternative to justify exposing the neighbor’s identity would be Aristotle’s Golden Mean in ethical principles, of focusing on the actor. When you read this article all parties, the Post, Pokin and the Journal, wanted to focus on the neighbor. Pokin and the Journal decided not to reveal not only because of what the public would do but also because they wanted the law to handle it. The Post who did reveal the neighbor, wanted to remind them that even though they were not convicted on anything they played a part in something tragic and needed to be held responsible somehow. By being identified it didn’t just let the public know, now their friends, and family also knew who they were and what they were capable of.
No comments:
Post a Comment