A TEENAGE GIRL in Missouri killed herself after receiving nasty messages via MySpace.A reporter from the St. Charles Journal reported the story, and wrote that the messages were actually sent by a fictitious person - a made up account from an ex-friend of the dead teen. And the parents of the ex-friend helped their daughter craft these evil messages that wound up causing 13-year old Megan Meier to hang herself.
But the reporter did not publish the names of the evil message sender or her family.
Should he have printed their names? The family was not charged with a crime. But the messages did lead to the death of young Megan.
What is the responsibility of the journalist here?
Either way, read the original story. It is heart-wrenching.
10 comments:
I think the reason they printed her name was because the story broke a year ago and it was already reported on. Since we sort of relayed the news, the papers printed her name and wrote it as a human interest story instead of a news report.
Since everyone in her hometown knew who she was and what happened to her, printing her name wasn't very revealing. And printing her name to the nation wasn't either, because it just puts a name on an anonymous person. It's a way to make you feel closer to the subject. Privacy isn't an issue because not many people knew who 13 year old Megan Meier was before this anyway.
doanh, that's not what Geo was asking. He was asking whether or not the reporter should have printed the names of the family allegedly responsible for Megan's death. As sad and disturbing as the story is, there is little evidence that it is the mother of the other girls' fault that Megan received the messages that lead to her suicide. I think with so much controversy surrounding the issue, the other family has the right to leave their names off the record. Though I don't condone their actions in any way.
yes, the journalist should have printed the names. if people can be that stupid they should be printed in the paper.
other note, this story makes me sick. i hate myspace and parents who let their kids do it.
no.
Personally, I think that their names SHOULD be posted in the name of justice. You would be opening the floodgates of hell upon that family: death threats would flow in and some of the more... assertive... people would probably pay the home of the mom, who made the myspace, a visit. The glory of it would be if anything were to happen to them, how could anyone pinpoint their coming to harm directly to you? Poetic irony anyone?
But, as retribution would be great fun and all, the real answer is: no, thier names should not be released. They were never convicted of anything and suppose they were innocent, you just ruined another family, undeservingly. Journalists aren't a part of the judicial system, so they don't have the authority to condemn.
You had me worried there for a minute, John D.
Excellent point: journalists are not part of the judicial system. But by labeling people as suspects and putting their names and images in the news, aren't we already declaring them guilty?
So whether or not the message-sender's family did anything wrong, wouldn't the media be, in a sense, convicting them?
That said, if the police and judicial system are not acting properly, it is the job of the media to ensure they do so (principle of journalism: be an independent monitor of government). So if people are calling for justice and asking for these people to go through the system, perhaps their names should be printed.
On a side note, revenge is not justice. That is just a horrible stereotype perpetuated by popular culture. The penalties for breaking the law (jail, fines, death, etc) are intended to rehabilitate and correct people (i.e. correctional facilities). They are supposed to deter people from committing crimes.
That sounds so naive given the state of our violent culture. But it's the truth.
- George (the benevolent teacher)
I think the journalists should have revealed the names of the evil messenger and her parents. When people shoot, kill, rape, beat-up, and stab each other, journalists and news reporters have a tendency of revealing names.....so why not reveal the names in this case?? Also, by not revealing the names, journalists neglected neglected "journalists first obligation" which is to the truth?? How is hiding their identity the truth? Shouldnt viewers and frequent computer users be aware of who is causing peeple to commit suicide??
Because of the fact that I am completely disgusted by this story and sadden by the fact it isn't just some make-believe tale, I would say, sure print the names. "Reap what you sow" as they would say, because by printing the names of those awful example of parents/adults, they would indeed have A LOT coming to them.
Yet ignoring the desire to have revenge come their way, I think the journalist did what was best by not printing the names. By not printing the names, they abided to the principle of being "loyal to the citizen." The story of the Meiers' pain was delivered effectively in my opinon, but the other side, the monstrous neighbors, in an objective mind set had to have some loyalty from the journalist.
Also, had they printed the names would you be able to say that in fact "they provided a forum for public criticism and compromise?"
Few pay attention to the blog? I'm very sad now.
By the way ... just because we wrap up class tomorrow and the final next week - you can still check in on the blog. It will continue next semester for the next set of suckers who have to take this class.
So check back often!
- George (the blogging teacher)
While the Megan Meier case seems outrageous and unique, it isn’t. Hundreds of cases of egregious and heinous acts go on every day with the same excuses out of our lawmakers.
One such other case....The case of Nikki Catsouras, is a classic example of disgusting, hateful activity against innocent victims, while our lawmakers excuse themselves from enacting laws to prevent this.
The excuse lawmakers use to let themselves off the hook stem from the growth of the Internet and how fast it's changing. This is a sham.
Chat rooms, message boards, instant messengers and email have been in existence for far over a decade now. While the software used to transmit messages changes slightly, the basic essence of using the Internet to send a message is largely the same. Is a decade or two long enough to establish some basic decency laws in regards to Internet usage?
I’ve posted the Nikki Catsouras story along with many details about the Megan Meier case so the inactivity out of our lawmakers towards these types of cases can be clearly seen.
Those who are interested in learning about cases like Megan’s and Nikki’s case are encouraged to drop by and comment on them. I have a couple of polls set up as well. Danny Vice would like to hear your point of view.
Public awareness of the problem and discussions about possible solutions are the best way to pressure elected officials into action instead of excuse making.
I invite you to come by and share your opinion.
Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com
Post a Comment