The thing that makes the West ethics case study so interesting, is that it could be argued in either direction. However, in my opinion, there were some ethical breaches in investigating the story. Before, during and after the Savalli interview, I thought the story was unethical in areas.
Though the messages between West and MotoBrock are public domain, as they were held on a public forum, it doesn’t mean they need to be broadcast to the world. Savalli said the Spokesman released the entire transcript of the messages to be transparent, yet, not all of the transcripts were released in their entirety.
“Later, after small talk about sports…”
The transcripts say things like this all the time. Their purpose is to cut out what isn’t relevant to the investigation (in the Spokesman’s opinion). If the Spokesman was truly concerned about complete transparency, I think it should have released the talk about sports and the inane details, not just the juicy ones.
The way the transcripts were released is where I think there was an ethics violation. The Spokesman included details about West’s mutual masturbation with MotoBrock, which occurred after MotoBrock had claimed he was 18. The FBI conducted its own investigation and pressed no charges against West. He did nothing wrong chatting with an 18 year old in that manner, especially after the investigators had tried to bait West into illicit activity with a minor (by having MotoBrock be age 17). When performing an undercover operation, you have a duty to try and observe rather than bait your subject into illegal activity. It’s pretty clear to me, the spokesman tried to bait West into that activity. I think that type of investigation is unethical.
I don’t expect too much privacy online, or rather, I know not to expect any privacy online. I’m not sure of the technical legality, but I think the lack of privacy is a shame. MySpace and Facebook are private businesses that create a very public forum (but I don’t know if online areas are considered actual public forums under the first amendment…), so it’s difficult to tell how much privacy should be allowed. Clearly you shouldn’t post anything online you don’t want the world to see no matter how private you think your content is.
That reality is what led West’s downfall.
West thought he had privacy online, or rather, he was lulled into a sense of privacy. The frontline piece notes that West was very guarded in his initial interactions, protecting information about his position and identity. However, as West began to trust MotoBrock and others, he slowly released more information about himself. West would have done well not to release any information whatsoever, however, I think he was a closeted gay man struggling with his identity, and these chat conversations were his release.
Newspaper policy prevents reporters from pretending to be someone they are not, but I don’t think hiring a computer expert to provide the deception makes any difference. It’s like saying hiring a hit man to do your dirty work doesn’t equate murder. It may be legal, but it’s not ethical. I don’t think the Spokesman could have got the story without the online consultant, but I do think that they tried to bait West.
I tend to agree with the New York Times. I think the Spokesman’s intentions were pure in the beginning, but the final product looked like a “witch hunt.” In the Savalli interview, she said there was no reason to write a story about West’s sexuality in relation to his anti-gay political agenda before the investigation had begun. I wonder then, why it was necessary to release so many sexually graphic details about West when the investigation supposedly focused solely on West’s abuse of power (handing out internships, etc.). Do we need details about West’s mutual masturbation to know that he offered an internship to a young man? I don’t think so.
I think the conflict between West’s voting policies and his sexual orientation would have made a separate story earlier on, but apparently it was not of importance until graphic details were available.
In the frontline piece and the Savalli interview, the editorial staff of the Spokesman maintains sexuality was not an issue. I think this is not true whatsoever. I don’t think the Spokesman harbored any sort of anti-gay agenda, but it’s impossible to say the investigation didn’t center on West’s sexual orientation.
Clearly, West abused his power, and there is a story there. Although, I think it is a small abuse. West wasn’t siphoning money from tax-payers or committing fraud. He offered unpaid internships, which cost the city nothing to young men he had romantic interest in that he had met in a gay chatroom. I think that was a story that the public needed to hear, but the graphic details that didn’t pertain to that story should have been left out.
No comments:
Post a Comment