Naming a Tweeter
I want you to put some real thought into your answers to the six questions below. Let's make this one worth 60 points.
Due by 11 a.m. Monday, Oct. 9.
Naming a Tweeter
Annoyed by the decibel level at the Hetzel Union Building – Penn State University’s student union – a 19-year-old white sophomore decided to register a complaint on the Internet blaming the noise on African American students.
At 3 p.m. Sept. 5, 2013, she tweeted: “Dear most of the black community at penn state: the hub is not your playground, please stop shouting, and dancing and playing music.”
The tweet caused an uproar on the 45,000-student campus. Within hours, The Daily Collegian, the independent student daily, had received 30 re-tweets and two phone calls saying the tweet was racially insensitive and ought to be the subject of news coverage. In addition, The Collegian, which regularly monitors campus student leaders on Twitter, found that these leaders were concerned about the tweet’s racial nature.
Collegian editors had no doubt that the tweet was newsworthy because it suggested racial tension on campus and because it had drawn a spontaneous, significant backlash. But they needed to decide whether to use the tweeter’s identity in the news coverage. And if they did use her identity, they had to be sure that she had actually sent the tweet that appeared on her account.
Trying to verify who sent the tweet
Verifying the identity was a challenge. The reporter assigned to the story called the tweeter’s cellphone several times over the next five hours. Once, the person answering the phone hung up. There were no responses to voicemail messages asking whether the cellphone owner had sent the tweet. Although the Twitter account had been active earlier that day, it was deleted during the time The Collegian was trying to verify the identity. The reporter was at a dead end.
Editors and the reporter then Google-searched the Twitter account holder’s name trying to find another way to verify that she had sent the tweet about noise at the HUB. They found that the name was associated with the same sorority that had been mentioned in previous tweets on that account. So they called the sorority president, who would not confirm the tweeter’s identity.
Then, since information on the Web indicated that the tweeter was a member of the Panhellenic Council, they called the president of the council. The president confirmed that the account holder was a member of the council.
At this point the Collegian editors decided that they had verified the identity of the tweeter.
The Collegian’s coverage of the incident
The editors’ next decision was whether to name the tweeter in their Twitter, online and print reporting. That is a detail that gives the story credibility, of course. But in this instance, the editors had to make a choice between the ethical values of truth-telling (reporting the name) and minimizing harm (sparing the student some of the notoriety stemming from the tweet). It is a choice that raises such questions as: From a news standpoint, how important was the name? How would identifying the tweeter affect her life?
After a discussion, the editors made their decision. They would name her.
The Collegian tweeted at 9:03 p.m.: “Earlier today, a #PennState student tweeted an offensive comment regarding black students in the HUB that garnered a backlash on social media.”
That was followed immediately by a tweet naming the tweeter and her sorority, and stating that she had deleted her Twitter account since the tweet in question.
Three more tweets followed, the third of which, at 9:42, reported: “In the wake of numerous diversity issues raised last year, a controversial tweet gained campus-wide attention today.” This tweet ended with a link to the first report that was posted to the Collegian website at 9:21 p.m., which included the full text of the tweet, the tweeter’s username and her real name.
The next day, on Sept. 6, a story on the front page of The Collegian added a screenshot of the tweet, revealing the student’s picture as well.
[Although this case study focuses on whether The Daily Collegian should have named the tweeter in its news coverage, her identity is omitted here because it is not essential to a discussion of the questions raised in the case.]
Here are excerpts from The Collegian’s story:
After a controversial tweet was posted on Twitter Thursday evening, many Penn State students took to social media to voice their anger and discontent.It was a tweet that many believe was racially insensitive.The tweet was posted by [name redacted]….[Name redacted] is listed as a member of the Penn State chapter of Alpha Xi Delta on the chapter’s website. President of the sorority Jenn Flemming was reached by phone, but would not confirm that the tweet came from a member of her sorority. She said she was unable to comment further.However, Penn State Panhellenic President Rachel Franceschino could confirm [name redacted] is a member of the Panhellenic Council at Penn State.“She is a member of a Panhellenic sorority, but the tweet does not reflect the views of women of Panhellenic,” Franceschino said….The Black Caucus was in the middle of its general meeting when they heard about the tweet Thursday, President of the Black Caucus Naeem Holman said.“To see comments like that being made goes to show how little conversation is being made regarding diversity on campus,” Holman (senior-integrative arts) said. “I hope this can be a reteachable moment.”Holman said he hopes to have the opportunity for either the student to reach out to the Black Caucus or for the group to reach out to her, in order to have an open conversation so the situation could be better understood….
Two days after she sent the original message on Twitter, the tweeter made a public apology. She emailed a statement to The Collegian, and it was published online Sept. 8: “I sincerely apologize for my actions and words. The tweet in question is inappropriate, and I am truly sorry to those who I have offended.”
An editorial in the print newspaper Sept. 9 with the headline “There’s work to be done for diversity acceptance” did not identify the tweeter. Instead, it used terms such as “the student” and “the account owner.” In a Sept. 10 story “NAACP angered by tweet,” also omitted the tweeter’s identity.
Recalling other incidents involving greeks
The Collegian coverage pointedly mentioned two incidents in the preceding school year of racial or ethnic insensitivity involving sorority and fraternity members. This is what the initial print story reported:
One student, Lyn Peterson, who said she does not have a Twitter account, saw the tweet on her Facebook news feed four times. It was when she noticed that it had gone “semi-viral” that she decided to call the Collegian, Peterson said. …This tweet comes less than a year after an “offensive” photo of the Penn State chapter of the Chi Omega sorority dressed in ponchos and sombreros surfaced last December.Interfraternity Council President Chip Ray also wrote tweets in January referencing stereotypes about Mexican people, as well as derogatory comments toward women.
A professor’s critique of the coverage
Russell Frank, a Penn State associate professor of journalism and himself a newspaper columnist, was disturbed by The Collegian’s decision not just to name the Tweeter but also to run the screenshot with her photo. He wrote this essay and sent it to the newspaper. It was published Sept. 11. Here is an excerpt:
The Daily Collegian could have used the foolish tweet as a jumping-off point to gather additional evidence of racist attitudes among Penn State students and revisit the question of whether the university is doing enough to combat such attitudes. Instead, the paper decided to make an example of the tweeter.The culprit wasn’t just named. A screenshot of her tweet — with her photo — was published on the front page of the print edition of the paper.The usual defense of this kind of exposure is that the information is already “out there.” Anyone who wants to know the name of the tweeter can find it online in about five seconds.Entirely true, but how many readers would have bothered? For most of us, I suspect, it was more important to know what was said than who said it.
Frank argued that the youth of the tweeter should have been taken into account. “If a Penn State faculty member had been the source of the tweet, I would say, by all means, name him and shame him. He ought to know better. Holding people with power accountable is exactly what journalists should be doing. But an undergraduate?”
Frank also objected to the amount of attention the paper devoted to the tweeter’s involvement in greek life. He wrote, “The story names the tweeter’s sorority and, in six additional paragraphs, includes comment from the president of the Panhellenic Council and a summary of two prior instances of greeks engaging in offensive behavior and comment… .Instead of insinuating that the complaint about noise in the HUB-Robeson Center is part of a larger pattern of ethnic or racial insensitivity among Penn State greeks — without giving greeks an opportunity to defend themselves — a reporter for The Daily Collegian might have explored the question ‘Is there such a pattern?’ in depth.”
The editor explains
In an interview, editor-in-chief Brittany Horn said that in deciding to name the tweeter, the editors were influenced by the fact that the original tweet had been re-tweeted more than 100 times. That led them to conclude that the tweeter’s identity was already public knowledge. As they saw it, that warranted using the screenshot online and in print.
Horn said that she respected Professor Frank’s position, and that she and the other editors had “wrestled with those same issues” before the first story ran. What ultimately convinced the editors, she said, was that the reaction from the student body was so strong, the tweeter had, in effect, become a “public figure.” She said that although they did not consider a single racial comment from a single student to be news, the heavy campus response to a tweet was news.
“Because it was brought to our attention, it was a campus issue,” she said. “It would have been a disservice to the readers to not address it.”
Horn said that although they decided the tweeter’s identity should be a part of the story, the editors wanted to avoid making the story “only about her.” That’s why, she said, in the first story and in the editorial, they emphasized that the tweet should be used as an opportunity to address the broader campus issue of diversity. The Sept. 6 story quoted a student as saying “the issue is not about making the girl who wrote the tweet feel bad, but to start a conversation about prejudice at Penn State.”
The editors’ decision to stop identifying the tweeter in later stories, Horn said, was consistent with their earlier judgment that diversity was the focus, not the tweeter
Regarding the attention given to the tweeter’s sorority, Horn said that since they had been unable to reach the tweeter, contacting the sorority leadership was the only way to confirm her identity.
Horn said she still thinks the editors made the right decision.
She said students know that their online activity “is part of their résumé now.” This incident, she said, “is a reminder to our readers that there are consequences for what you say.”
Horn did not see the coverage as victimizing the tweeter. She noted that the comment function on the online story was deactivated because the editors did not want the newspaper to be “a forum for hurt.”
Horn said the newspaper had set a precedent for holding other groups responsible for instances of racial insensitivity in the past year (Halloween Costumes and Interfraternity Council president’s tweet), and this was yet another opportunity for the paper to facilitate a discussion about an issue that is difficult to bring up.
“[Our reporting] has created conversation,” she said, which she considers a success. Horn said it might have been unfortunate for the tweeter, but the stories have created important teachable moments on campus.
The tweeter’s view
In an email written on Sept. 24 for this case study, the tweeter repeated her apology. She also said that she “was getting a lot of negative attention on Twitter” and that the Collegian story “seemed to fuel the fire.”
“It was very hard to read the comments and not respond back…to the very rude things,” the tweeter said. “But, with the power of social media, unfortunately people only notice the negative, so even if I did try to apologize, it wouldn’t have gotten any attention.”
She said that although she was afraid that people would confront her, no one had. Because the published picture was very small, she said she was not worried about people recognizing her. Still, she said, she is “terrified” to tell people her name.
She said she feels “as if the newspapers forgot that I was just a 19-year-old girl who said the wrong thing, at the wrong time, on a public media site and it just went viral.”
As for how the stories have affected her, the tweeter said: “In the beginning my studies were affected because I couldn’t think about anything else but the situation… . My biggest fear now growing up is that for the rest of my life when I go to apply to jobs, I’m going to have to explain what happened in college. My future kids will search me on Google and ask what these articles are about. One tweet, that I truly regret, will now haunt me for the rest of my life because newspapers decided to write the article about me.”
Questions for online discussion
- If you were the moral agent in this case – the editor-in-chief of The Daily Collegian – would you have named the tweeter? Would you have run the screenshot showing her photo?
- The Collegian editor said the decision to name the tweeter was based on the fact that her identity already was widely known. Do you agree with that reasoning?
- If The Collegian had decided to withhold the tweeter’s identity, should it have informed readers and explained the decision? If you were writing the explanation, what would you say?
- In its initial print story, The Collegian recalled in detail two previous incidents involving greek organizations and the subject of race. Was the paper suggesting a pattern of racial insensitivity by members of greek organizations? If you think the paper was doing that, did it make the case?
- Was The Collegian accountable when it published Professor Frank’s essay? What do you think of the professor’s criticisms?
- An axiom of journalism in the digital age is that reporters must confirm with absolute certainty whether an online posting came from the person whose name is on it. The Collegian got the name right, of course, but at the time the coverage began, had The Collegian met that confirmation standard?
1. As a legal adult she is responsible for her own actions so I would release her name and photo.
ReplyDelete2. The decision to name her should have relied more on the fact that she posted it to a public domain,but the fact she is well known is all the more reason to include her name.
3. If The Collegian had decided to withhold the tweeter’s identity, I don't think they should have to explain themselves. If I had to write an explanation I would say that to protect the identity of the student the Collegian will not be releasing her name.
4. By revisiting these previous instances of greek students being racist it makes it look like the Collegian is trying to make a connection that doesn't have enough proof. If they wanted to make a connection the Collegian should have found more connections to provide better proof.
5. By publishing the professors piece the Collegian was accountable for the editorial. Personally I don’t agree with him and I think the Collegian had the full right to publish her name and photograph. If in the case she was a minor, this would be another story, but she was a legal adult and should make held responsible.
6. There was still a chance that the name the Collegian had could have been wrong, but there was a high probability that this girl was the tweeter. Personally I would have waited a bit longer to confirm that this girl had published the comment herself, and that someone hadn’t hacked her account.
1. I would run her name because she should be held accountable for her actions, however I would not run her photo, especially after the methods the paper went through to get it, because I feel like that is too much of a privacy breach.
ReplyDelete2. I don't feel as though this is sound logic. Since her view was tweeted out, it is public and should be covered, but following the logic of the paper, the girl's identity could have been revealed if she simply spoke her views to someone and another party overheard.
3. If the Collegian had elected to withhold her identity, then they should have undoubtedly informed readers and explained the decision. If I was charged with writing the explanation, I would say "In order to prevent possible action against the student and protect her privacy, the Collegian has decided to withhold her identity."
4. I feel the paper was attempting to make a connection to racial insensitivity by Greek organizations, but that their attempt was too weak and poorly backed to be of any substance.
5. I believe that their publishing of his essay was a decent attempt at accountability by recognizing an opposing view that actively criticized their own paper. I think that the professor's criticisms are perfectly valid, well explained, and well founded, despite my disagreement with his view.
6. No, the Collegian had not successfully confirmed her identity at the time of publication. If there is any chance that they had been wrong, they were not thorough enough in their research and should have waited until they were proof positive of the girl's identity.
1) I don't think there is anything morally wrong with holding people accountable for their actions, so I would have still posted her picture and name.
ReplyDelete2) It shouldn't have mattered that she was already popularly known, thee only reason should have posted the name was because she expressed her views on a public site.
3)I don't believe that they should have to explain themselves on why they didn't want to identify her, but if was assigned to give the Collegian an explanation I would say, "In order to assure her safety and protection against all actions, we will not identify her."
4)The Collegian was trying to connect the ongoing pattern of racial insensitivity on college campuses by Greek organizations, and it listed it previous racial insensitivity issues before this one. I believe that is proof that this is an ongoing issue, and nothing is changing. I have no issue with them pointing that out, they should have.
5)It was good accountability for the Collegian, and it showed credibility. But I disagree with the notion that they shouldn't have posted her name and picture. I believe that it is an tired excuse, to brush off what she said as an adult, who should know better in 2017.
6)The Collegian could have possibly gotten the name wrong, but they used instinct to go along with it. I would have personally waited until it was 100 percent confirmed, and I wouldn't want to cause damage to an innocent person if I was wrong.
1. As a moral agent in this case I would have chose to run the name and the picture. I would do this because the tweeter was not a minor and she should be accountable for her actions.
ReplyDelete2. Yes, I definitely agree with this reasoning because if the news wouldn't have revealed it, someone on the internet definitely would have and it would have gone viral.
3. If they did choose to not name the tweeter I think they should have definitely gave an explanation. However, if they did they could be accused of agreeing with the tweet because they are protecting the tweeter. I would explain that the tweeter's name was not disclosed to protect her from harm.
4. Yes, the paper was suggesting a pattern because there seems to be one. The paper proved this well by showing examples of previous similar cases
5. Yes, the Collegian was accountable for posting the professor's essay. I think Professor Frank's essay was in valid because the information was bound to be exposed regardless.
6. Initially, they did not have enough confirmation that the girl was the tweeter, however, after they had gotten information from the council I think it was official.
1.If I were the editor of The Daily Collegian I would not have ran the screenshot showing her photo but would have included the tweet itself to establish credibility. I also would not have realized her name because the accountability for her actions would have come on its own, without publicly disclosing her name across campus.
ReplyDelete2.No I do not because the fact that her identity was already known from the tweet is why I would not have published it in the paper. Her consequences would have surfaced through the tweet alone.
3.Yes, I would say that the decision was made to withhold the tweeter’s identity in order to refrain from her possible public humiliation.
4.I think the paper was simply stating that the instances happened to be from members of greek organizations not that there was a “pattern,” possibly creating a racial stereotype among greek organizations.
5.Yes. I believe that Professor Frank was correct in his criticisms. The extent that the tweeter’s identity was covered seemed unnecessary in comparison to solely covering the problem at hand.
6.The Collegian had gathered enough information to scratch the surface but still could not have been 100% that they had identified the tweeter correctly.
Ryan Bradford
ReplyDelete1. Yes, I would have run the picture of her tweet and named her. I agree that at this point most people know and that the information is already out there. Showing the screenshot will back up and improve the article.
2. Yes, because it would not have been story worthy otherwise. Without the notoriety the tweet gained, it wouldn't have come to the attention of the paper.
3. If the decision had been to withhold their identity then it should be explained why so it doesn't seem like you are taking sides.
4. It came across that way but I don't think that was there intention. If it was they should have provided more evidence and gotten a comment from the Greek organizations on campus.
5. The professor's points are valid but I still believe publishing the tweet, photo included, was the right move. The story fills void if you don't name the culprit.
6. Perhaps let the reader decide? At the time the story broke they tried to contact the person behind the tweet and they refused to comment, present this and the screenshot and let the reader decide. At this point the tweet was viral enough that the person should have jumped at an opportunity to defend themselves, not turned it away. So long as it passes obvious validity tests, like a proper time stamp, then I would say to go ahead and run the story.
1. I don't think there was anything wrong with running the girl's name and her tweet because she is an adult and should be held accountable for her words, but I wouldn't have ran her picture because I feel like that is a breach of privacy.
ReplyDelete2. I don't necessarily agree with this logic. The decision should have been based solely on the content of the tweet alone and not the fact that she was "widely known" across campus.
3. The paper shouldn't have to explain their reasons behind not naming the student, but I would say something along the lines of not naming her for "safety reasons." Maybe "we decided to withhold the identity of the student to protect her privacy and to prevent possible action and harm against her."
4. Yes, I would say that the paper was trying to establish a pattern of behavior. Yes, I would say it made the case it was trying to make.
5. I think publishing the professor's essay made the Collegian accountable. I agree with the professor's critique that the paper should have been more focused with the pattern of racial insensitivity on campus rather than just focusing on the Greek life aspect of it.
6. I don't think the paper met the confirmation standard because they weren't 100% sure of the tweeter's identity when they ran the publication. I think they just got lucky with the identity. If it were me, I would have ran the story without identifying the tweeter or waited until I had a certain confirmation of the identity before publishing.
1. If I were to be the moral agent in this case, I would have run the tweeter's name and photo. She was 19 years old at the time of the tweet, which makes her a legal adult, and as such, she should be held accountable for her actions.
ReplyDelete2. I don't agree with this reasoning, I think even if the tweeter's identity was not already known, I would still name her, due to the fact that she is an adult, who tweeted an insensitive thing, and needs to be called out in order to make the proper reparations.
3. Had The Collegian decided to withhold the tweeter's identity, I do believe they should have explained, if only to defend people's questioning of their credibility. If I were the one that were writing the explanation, I would just say that the reader's name was withheld in order to ensure that she would be safe against potential harm.
4. I think the paper was definitely trying to suggest a pattern of racial insensitivity by greeks. I think the paper did make a case, but not a very strong one, as it only brought into perspective two cases. If they were wanting to make a stronger case, they should've written of more incidents, in order to emphasize the relation of racial insensitivity to greek organizations.
5. The Collegian was accountable in publishing Professor Frank's essay. I personally believe that Professor Frank's criticisms were wrong, as the tweeter was an adult, who should have known better, and who has to face the consequences of her actions, and in posting her name and picture, The Collegian contributed to delivering justice.
6. At the time coverage began, I do not believe that The Collegian had met the confirmation standard. I think if I had been in charge of identifying the tweeter, I would've waited until I could publish a name with absolute certainty, to make sure to avoid any accidental harm to an innocent.
1. If I had to decide whether or not to release the identity of the tweeter, I definitely would have chosen to release her name and her photo. She was an adult at the time and should have been aware of the effects of posting negative content on social media.
ReplyDelete2. The fact that she was already well known does factor into the decision to release her name, I believe. Word had already gotten out that she tweeted it and it was on social media which is available to the public.
3. If they had decided to withhold her identity they wouldn’t need to explain themselves and their decision. The only thing the public needs to know at that point is that they are protecting her identity, and that’s exactly how I would give my explanation.
4. I did get the sense of the paper suggesting a pattern of racial insensitivity by members of Greek life. I don’t think they made the case for it very well, rather that they strongly hinted at it.
5. Yes, The Collegian was accountable by using Professor Frank’s essay and publishing it. I completely disagree with the professor because, as mentioned, the tweeter’s identity was already out there and her tweet had already gathered over 100 retweets.
6. I don’t believe The Collegian had met the standard because they didn’t know 100% that this girl was the tweeter. The only information they gathered was that she was in the Panhellenic Council, not that she was the one that made the tweet.
1. I would name the tweeter because I think it's important for people to know who was responsible but I'm not sure if I would run the pictures because of how private that is. I think the picture might be too much in this situation.
ReplyDelete2. It maybe true that she was well known but I don't think that's the reasoning I would go with for naming her. I think you should name her simply because she mad the tweet not because she was well know that doesn't matter.
3.I would explain because I think most people following this story would want to know who the tweeter was and they would be wondering why her identity was not revealed. I would say in order to not humiliate the tweeter we will not reveal her identity.
4.I don't think they made a strong case but I do see why they mentioned it and I understand it.
5. Frank's essay was accountable when they published it in my opinion. I think the professors criticism was valid and I do not disagree with it.
6. I would have looked into it more before confirming that she posted it but the chances of someone else posting it were not very high. I still would have to say no it did not meet the standard because it was not for certain.
1-I would have ran her name because she is an adult and tweeted from a public account. The screenshot was important to include and if it included her picture I believe it should have been shared in The Daily Collegian.
ReplyDelete2-I agree that she should have been identified. Even if she wasn't widely known the tweet was widely known. It was pertinent information to the story.
3-I believe they should have informed readers of their decision. If they did withhold the name they definitely should have clarified that the tweeter was a part of the Panhellenic Council, but not a leader or a high ranking member.
4- It seemed like they were suggesting a pattern. I believe the paper needed to point out the connections. Especially since there were cases of fraternity officers making these public insensitive comments. I think they definitely could have elaborated or dug deeper for their case.
5- They were accountable. I think the Professor's criticisms were right in some aspects. I don't think people should attack the tweeter or ruin her. But as a 19 year old in the modern era, she knows very well that twitter is a public forum. She can't use an excuse that she didn't think many people would see it, because a large part of twitter is trying to get a large portion of people to follow you or retweet your tweets.
6- I believe that they should have confirmed she tweeted it before reporting her name. But that can be hard to do because after the backlash she would have been denying her connection. But just because they couldn't confirm her completely they definitely should have reported the story about the tweet and the problems within the fraternity and sorority communities.
1. As the editor, I would not have run the girl's name, the screenshot or the photo in the paper. Although she is technically a legal adult and should be held responsible for her actions, it is not the job or place of news or media to "teach people a lesson". The coverage of her tweet alone would have probably made her feel guilty enough to regret the mistake. She knew who she was and what she did, and any of her followers who knew her personally would've known as well..I'm sure that alone would've made her regret the tweet.
ReplyDelete2. If her identity was already widely known, then what was the point of naming her to further the knowledge of her identity? I disagree that the idea of naming the young girl was the right thing to do.
3. If they had not shared her name, they would really have nothing to explain. Even with an anonymous tweeter, the tweet would've been just as strongly debatable and wrong. Covering it in the paper would have been enough to alert people of the rising race issue on the campus. If I had to explain, I would've said that the concealed identity of the tweeter was a means of protecting her safety as well as her reputation, and that the coverage was enough to reveal the growing issue.
4. Yes, the collegian was implying the ongoing racial issue on campus and had sufficient evidence of past issues that had still not been resolved. This did support the case that the issue still continued and something needed to be done to bring more peaceful diversity to the university.
5. Yes, they were accountable, but had good reason to publish his essay in their own defense. The professor's criticism was correct in my opinion, in that the collegian went too far as to address the young lady who made the tweet.
6. No, I believe the collegian did not meet the confirmation standard. They were not completely certain in the beginning of the coverage and still not completely confirmed in the end when they reported the girl's identity.
1. If I was the moral agent, I most definitely would have named the tweeter. The paper stated how the student was a member of sorority and there is no telling what other campus organizations she is involved or associated with. The campus deserved to know who she was and what she represents. I would have ran the screenshot as well, because like it was explained in the article, anyone could have went and found the tweet, so I personally believe it made no difference to publish the screenshot of her photo right in the article.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with this reasoning, because I know how fast things can spread through social media, especially on a college campus. Like one of the other students stated above, the screenshot had already been posted on Facebook. If it had not already made its way to Instagram and snapchat, I am very sure it was quickly on its way there. The student’s original tweet even had over 100 retweets. Even though many people did not know the tweeter personally, they knew her name from the and it was clear that her identity already was widely known.
3. Yes, it should have informed the readers on the decision, because often time readers don’t quite understand the safety reasons behind withholding someone’s name. I know this personally, because before I took this class, I really had a small amount of knowledge on the code of ethics for journalists. My explanation would say something like, “in order to keep the student safe from physical and emotional harm we will not be stating or releasing the student’s name.”
4. I do think they made the case, because every incident they discussed involved the same situations. If Greek organizations are consistently dealing with race negatively, then that should be newsworthy and it should cause readers to want to do something about it to make a change on the campus.
5. The publishing of Professor Frank’s critique clearly shows the Collegian’s accountability. I do not agree with his opinion on how the tweeter’s age should have been taken into consideration. She knew that what she tweeted would cause her to receive attention, that is literally what twitter is created for. She knew what she tweeted was wrong, 19 years old or older. It does not matter.
6. Although the Collegian had gotten confirmation that the student was a part of the Greek organization, they still didn’t have actual confirmation that she sent the tweet. I would have personally waited until the girl sent a statement to actually accuse her, but that may have taken too long to publish.
1.Since her tweet was retweeted and found so many times, her account could not have been set to private, therefore what she did was in public for everyone to see. Everything she puts on a public social media is everyone’s to see, as it is in public, so running the tweet, her name, and her photo were completely acceptable. Using age as an excuse to do something stupid ends the moment you turn 18. She was an adult who should have known better, so she felt the consequences of her public actions. I believe running everything they did was acceptable.
ReplyDelete2.Yes. That is the nature of social media. Unless you set your account to private, which her’s likely was not, everything you do on social media is public, and with her tweet she made herself even more known, so the newspaper is justified in their reasoning.
3.Had they withheld the identity, they probably should have explained it, since her actions were public anyway. I would’ve said the identity was withheld to protect her privacy and safety due to the backlash she might receive.
4.Having not been at Penn State that year, I wouldn’t know how notable the previous incidents were in comparison to this one. However, if the previous incidents had been notable enough to have been covered by the paper, it seems like the mention of the previous incidents is to make the incident look more relevant and newsworthy than just some people getting mad at a tweet. If it’s part of a string of incidents, it becomes more newsworthy. It did not seem like the paper was definitely trying to make a case about racist behavior in Greek organizations.
5.The paper was accountable in doing this. I understand the professor’s views but disagree. Readers would have probably bothered to find out who made the tweet the name not been revealed. The very nature of the secret identity of the tweeter in that situation would make a reader, especially a student, want to search out who it was and if it might have been someone they knew. People would have searched for the tweeter’s identity.
6.The Collegian did not meet the confirmation standard in my opinion. They certainly identified the owner of the account, but just because the president of the Panhellenic Council said that a member of the council owned the account, the tweet itself can not be verified by that. What if someone had taken her phone and tweeted it? This article would have ruined her reputation and could have gotten the paper sued for libel. And since she isn’t a public figure in herself, she would’ve likely won because, in the hypothetical situation where her phone was stolen, her reputation would’ve been killed because of inaccurate reporting. Identifying the account’s owner does not equate identifying a tweet’s sender. The Collegian did not meet the confirmation standard.
1. If I was the moral agent, I would have released the name and the screenshot of the tweet. The student was of legal age, so she can take full responsibility for her actions. The screenshot of the tweet shows evidence, and since the tweet was widespread and anyone could search for it online it makes no difference whether it was posted or not.
ReplyDelete2. I agree because she posted on a public site. The tweet already had 100 retweets, not including screenshots posted onto other social media. Her identity was already out there because of quickly spreading media.
3. If they decided not to share her name I don't think there would be anything to explain. I would say "Her name is being withheld to protect the students safety."
4. I think the paper was trying to suggest a pattern of racial insensitivity by Greeks. I think it should be addressed and go forth with a change on campus with more diversity, but the case lacked evidence and should have provided more examples.
5. It showed credibility and accountability to post the professors comment on the situation. Although, I do see where the professor is coming from I have to disagree because she is 19 and should know not to post on media if she can't face the consequences of her actions.
6. The Collegian did get proof that she was in the Greek community, but did not meet the confirmation standard of the actual tweet. I would have waited to release the name and looked more into it, so it could be 100% correct to avoid accusing someone wrongfully.
1. I would name the Tweeter because it provides a sense of credibility to the newspaper and reporter by giving the exact name of the person who released the Tweet; however, I would not have included the picture of the student. Strictly for safety reasons, even if the picture was small, if someone wanted to cause any type of retaliation upon the student they could easily find a visual to identify the student.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with the fact that her name was already widely known. Her tweet had been shared with many students on many different social media platforms. I do not agree with that being the reasoning of disclosing the students name in the article. I think a more reasonable reason would be the fact that her tweet was on a "public site" and she is automatically accountable for the things she posts.
3. I think if The Collegian decided to leave the student's name out they should have provided an accurate reason of why they did not include her name. I would say something along the lines of trying to provide safety from harm we have decide to not disclose her name, or since the account was deleted and they did not have actual proof from the girl's account itself they could not 100% verify the source.
4. I do not think that the paper was truly trying to claim racial insensitivity from greek life. I think they just used these widely known events to simply address the idea of racial insensitivity on the campus as a whole.
5. I think the publishing of Professor Frank's essay in the Editorial section gave The Collegian accountability. This was their way of addressing an opinion and still maintaining credibility as a paper by publishing opposing views. I do not fully agree with Professor Frank's essay. I do think they should have published the name of the student, but I can get behind Frank's statement of not posting the photo.
6. The Collegian had not met the standard for conformation and had no real way to confirm the tweet because the account was deleted. While they may have been able to see screenshots of the tweet or confirm a name from other organizations they were never able to get an actual confirmation of the original tweet. In this day screenshots can be edited and there is a possibility that people can edit and share things that are not true. I would have definitely dug deeper or mention that the account was deleted before completely confirming the identity of the student.
1. If it were up to me I would have named the tweeter and run the screenshot and photo. She was 19 at the time which means she's a legal adult and should be held accountable for her actions.
ReplyDelete2. I don't agree with the reasoning of why they included her name, I feel that because it was tweeted to a social media site, which is public to anyone, is reason enough, but the fact that she was well known is considered a factor.
3. I don't feel that the Collegian necessarily needs to explain themselves if they chose to withhold the name of the student, however I would say something along the lines of "the name of the tweeter is being withheld to ensure to protection and safety of the student".
4.I think that the Collegian was trying to connect the tweet to the ongoing pattern of racial insensetivity by members of Greek organization, but their claim was weak and was poorly backed up.
5. By publishing the professors essay the Collegian was accountable for the editorial. I disagree with him, however. The tweeter is a legal adult, if she had been a minor then it would be different, but she wasn't and should be held responsible for what she said.
6. I don't think the Collegian met the confirmation standard. When they identified her they were not 100% sure she had in fact tweeted it. I personally would have tried harder to confirm and waited longer to identify her.
1. I would most defiantly name her and post her picture. She is a legal adult who posted this publicly on a website that millions of users are able to view.
ReplyDelete2.Yes I do agree with this reason. She posted this publicly, if she didn't want others to see she would have left her profile private.
3. If the Collegian chose withhold the name of the student, I don't believe they would have to explain. If I have to explain the reason why I would simple say that it is because we want to make sure student is kept safe and protect because the issue is not with the student but what they said.
4. I believe that the Collegian was trying to show that there is a bigger issue within the institutions greek organizations that need to be address so behavior like this doesn't continue.
5. Publishing the Professors essay does make the Collegian accountable for the editorial. I disagree on what he said. She is an adult and as a member of a greek organization she represents not only herself but the school and her sorority. She should be held responsible for her actions but if she was under the age of 18 I do believe things should be handled differently.
6.The Collegian could have easily gotten the name wrong due to lack of research. I believe they should have waited until more research was gathered so they reached the study.
1. I don't think I would have run her name or photo in the story. I think that by using just the tweet the tweeter would have gotten enough backlash to know it was wrong because everyone knew who it was already.
ReplyDelete2. No I think that because her name was already widely known she would've received criticism on twittering naming her would have been pointless because her name is already on the tweet.
3. I would have showed the tweet and what it said and if someone was really that interested about who it was that said it they could easily find out because her name was attached to it, but I personally wouldn't be the one to put it in there.
4. I think they were just describing how there have been complaints about this happening before. I think by saying pattern you start to chew away at the greek life credibility which isn't the goal here.
5. I agree with what he said. I think that the important thing is what was said not who it was. I mean it also happened on twitter. Almost everyone on twitter has tweeted something that after they tweeted it thought maybe I shouldn't have tweeted that. I think releasing her name and photo is too far.
6. I think since she publicly apologized for it she was kind of admitting it was her. however, I think if she didn't say anything or said she didn't do it then publishing her name would be wrong because things like that happen all the time.
1. In this case I would have named the tweeted as well but not have shared her picture. Since she's legally an adult I believe it was okay to hold her accountable but I wouldn't agree with sharing her photo because it could cause the tweeter to be harmed if someone was angry enough to go find her.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with this, if their social media is put out there for anyone to see it is public already.
3. If The Collegian had decided to withhold the tweeter's identity I don't think they should have to explain their reasoning. If I had to write the explanation I would simply include that The Collegian took into consideration the safety of the student.
4. By trying to add previous incidents into an article about a member of Greek life tweeting something racially insensitive they are appearing to try and link these incidents to Greek organizations. They would need to provide more information on the previous cases to give a reasonable argument but by adding in these other incidents it got the reader to think about how Greek life treats racial issues.
5. By publishing Professor Frank's essay does make The Collegian accountable for the editorial. I can understand where the professor is coming from pointing out that without including the name in the article most readers wouldn't inspect further to try and figure the identity of the tweeter but on the other hand the tweeter was a legal adult and put it on a public site which anyone can access.
6. The Collegian did not meet the confirmation standard, the tweet and account had been deleted so they were basing their research off of screenshots of a tweet. They should have waited until more details had been found or announced to run the editorial/
1. Yes, I would have named the tweeter. She took it upon herself to publicly announce her opinion, so there should be no argument over whether or not she/her words should be discussed publicly. While running the screenshot with her photo sounds like “too much,” there is really no difference if you have already ran her name. I would have run the screenshot as well.
ReplyDelete2. Yes, I do agree with that reasoning. It would be one thing if this was something she had written in her diary that was later found without her knowledge. However, this was posted on her public Twitter page. She obviously had no problem with people seeing it until she realized what she said was actually insensitive.
3. I don’t think explaining their decision to withhold information is necessary, but I would prefer if they did. If I was writing the explanation, I would have said something along the lines of the idea that the situation and discussion is beyond this particular girl. What this girl happened to say opened a door into a much bigger issue. The point of the discussion is to address racial insensitivities across campus (and society). The girl and her tweet were just what got the discussion rolling.
4. I think by only discussing incidents involving greek organizations, that, yes, they were suggesting a pattern among that part of student life. Although I don’t think those few incidents can represent every student involved in greek life, I would argue that it shows the lack of education regarding racial issues provided in greek organizations as a whole.
5. I think they were accountable in the sense that they were open to criticism. I completely understand the professor’s claims and, to an extent, agree with him when he says, “it was more important to know what was said than who said it.” I think at the end of the day, yes, the discussion boils down to what needs to be fixed in our society regarding race issues. However, the girl who sent out the tweet did not spare those she was offending any harm, so why should the editorial spare her any? She publicly said what she said, thinking it was fine. Her thinking what she said was fine is a big part of the problem as a whole.
6. I don’t think they had 100% certainty of the tweeter’s identity. Personally, I would have waited a bit longer – it’s not like the story would have died by that point. However, the deleted account and the girl’s refusal to confirm her identity would have been confirmation enough.
1. If it had been me, I would not have released the girl's name or her profile picture. I would have blurred out her photo, but I would still release the screen shot of the tweet.
ReplyDelete2. I do not agree with their reasoning because the actual issue of the tweet is racial conflict on campus, not who tweeted it. They should have been focussed on the issue at hand.
3. I don't think they would have to inform readers why they didn't include the tweeter's name because, like I said before, who the tweeter is is not the issue. The only thing that should have been released was the tweet itself followed by the racial conflicts on that particular campus. They would have to inform readers that the tweeter is a student at Penn State University, but I don't see the need for her name. If I had to explain why I would just say that the tweeters name was not released because the focus of the issue should not be towards her personally, it should be towards Penn State University and their lack of diversity on their campus.
4. I would say that The Collegian most definitely suggested a pattern of racial insensitivity among the greek organizations on campus. Why else would they release the information in the print release? They weren't putting total blame on them, but it definitely suggested it. So I would say it made the case.
5. I 100% agree with Professor Flank essay because he thinks there is a larger issue at hand rather than just the student who released the tweet. The Collegian targeted the student instead of Penn State University and their lack of diversity on their campus.
6. At first, The Collegian didn't. However, they did get the confirmation they needed later on after speaking with the council president. I still don't think they should have released the student's name. They could have released just the tweet and still would have been able to bring attention to the racial issue on Penn State's campus.
1) I feel that the paper should, in face, run her name due to how she be held accountable for the actions that she has committed, but I would not go as far as to run the picture. I feel that has to do with too much privacy being shared with the public. The name should be sufficient enough unless she were to give the paper some permission to share a photo publicly.
ReplyDelete2) I feel that it is okay to share her name, but not due to the fact that she is widely known around campus. She shouldn't only be talked about due to her name but due to the issues at hand, which has to do with a racial conflict on campus.
3) I feel, in a way, that them not sharing her name to the public is not the public's concern, but if deemed necessary they should mention how it has to do with a protection of privacy and leave it at that. The public don't have a reason to know all of the details about why they withheld her information
4) I felt they were completely accountable for publishing the article. But I do not agree with the fact they should have withheld her name from the public. She should be held accountable for her actions, especially due to her being an legal adult. If she were underage, then there would be a different way of handling the situation.
5) I agree with the essay and also believe that they kept it open to criticism which was an important idea during this issue. Another thing was that the professor saw that the issue was a bigger deal and more important than the actual individual whom it was based around. Covering the issue was more important than just allowing the student to be held accountable and known.
6) The media was too quick to point out and cover this story before getting background or even details about the reasoning behind the post and/or whether or not the girl had actually posted it in the first place. They should have waited a while just to make sure they got their facts correct.
1.) I believe that I would have run her name in the paper. The investigation, finding just who it was that published the tweet in the first place was part of the story. Finding out her name and where she belonged, and not distributing that knowledge would be a disservice to the audience and the publication. Finding out that she was a sort of public figure makes it even more necessary to publish her name as more people would pay attention to the important issue that the paper was tying get across. That said, I don't believe I would have posted the screen shot. On top of her deleting as much of her physical connection as she could, it was obvious that it wasn't something she was proud of. Overall the picture wasn't needed, the story wasn't a sensational event that required such evidence. It was an internet exchange. Not publishing the woman's picture leaves the benefit of a doubt for her future employers and colleagues as her face isn't plastered to the story. She was only 19 after all, so I would have draw the line there.
ReplyDelete2.) Certainly. The paper wanted to use this story to bring more light to the unfortunately present racial issues in Penn State. Using a semi public figure was a perfect vessel to ship this issue on. It's unfortunate for the name at large, but there are consequences to such actions in the modern day. Publication just so happens to be one of them.
3.) In that hypothetical situation, they should have explained it. The process of finding out who said such a thing was a story on it's on that helped formulate the rest of the message The Collegian was attempting to publish. Had they decided not to reveal the information and leave a hole in the story, they could explain that the tweet was published by someone that they felt was too young to be broadcast to the public at that level or explain the lack of name usage as a privacy matter. This a fairly rough issue as the explanation for why or why not to use the name is very grey.
4.) They were certainly suggesting a pattern of racial insensitivity. Brittany Horn even said: "... the tweet should be used as an opportunity to address the broader campus issue of diversity..." as a part of her defense in leaving the woman's name in the article. I do believe it made the case as well. A large group of students supporting a racially charged comment isn't something to be looked at lightly or as a nonissue alongside the other issues published.
5.) The Collegian did great by publishing the opposing view point in an objective light (at least from what I observed in this write up). So if by accountable you mean they held themselves accountable for their own actions and left it to the audiences interpretation, then yes they certainly did. As for my agreement with the essay, I'm on the fence. I do agree that the image shouldn't have been published, but her name and place in the campus social ladder was important to the story and issue.
6.) They at least attempted this in doing some thorough research in finding the woman's identity. Though nothing was concrete, they did have some vague information and a screenshot. Eventually they had an apology which is concrete enough for this kind of account. Though I do believe that more could have been done to confirm the information. Things like reverse image searching the screenshot to check for it on Photoshop forums and the like, or even talking to the woman in question would have been better steps to take in the process leading up to the publication.
1. Yes. If she was confident in what she was writing, enough to post it on a social media site, she deserves the attention (even negative) that she originally sought to receive. The photo could have been found on her social media sites anyway so there should be no problem in them posting it.
ReplyDelete2. Yes. She did post the comment to a PUBLIC page where ANYONE could have seen it if they wanted to on her personal account. She didn't mind the attention initially given to the post (100 RT's which shows that they agreed with what she said). So just because this is different attention she doesn't want it anymore?
3. No. It would have just looked like they were making excuses for her. She dug her grave, now she can lie in it. If a fuss is made about why you didn't reveal the name, at that point an effort should be made to calm the population and tell them why (they honestly probably would have found it who it was even if they didn't post her name)
4. I dont think it was right of them to in a way shame the whole sorority because the actions of one do not reflect the whole group. They may have been trying to make a point in suggesting a pattern but there was no reason to drag the names of the sororities and fraternity because of the thoughts and mistakes of few. It wouldn't have made people mad at the sororities and fraternity instead of the people who deserved to have the blame on them.
5. I don't agree with the professors criticism because she should not be defended. She is 19, a legal adult, plenty capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong. The collegian publishing the essay was moral because it gave readers a different view/opinion on the case.
6. The Collegian was still trying to search for a credited source who could confirm the tweeters identity. They had the name on the twitter account and its good they did more digging to make 100% sure she was the one who posted it.
1. I agree with what Jordan said. If I were the publisher, I would have included the tweet itself, but I would not have included her name or photo. Yes, she is a legal adult and therefore accountable for her actions, however, in the case study, they made a good point whenever they said if someone who read the article wanted to know who it was they could just look on social media or google it. But how many people would actually be compelled to do so? I think that in this case, I would have tried to put myself in that girl's shoes. The kind of publicity and hate that can come from that can be live-altering. I do agree that what she said was entirely inappropriate and unethical. However, like they said in the case study, the focus of the story should have been about just that. What was said and why it was wrong, not who said it. People post offensive, unethical, crude, inappropriate, and hateful things on the internet all the time. So, no I would not have included her name or photo. Not necessarily even to protect the girl, but simply because I don't feel that it was needed.
ReplyDelete2. I do not agree with that reasoning, because like I said in number 1, if people wanted to know her identity, they could just look on social media or google if they felt so compelled to do sow. However, it drew the attention away from the focus of the story. I know that if I were to read a story about a girl who tweeted that and her name was included my first instinct would be to think, "Wow. what a bitch." Then I would look her up on Instagram. But if I read the same story about a "student" who tweeted that, my thoughts would be more along the lines of, "Wow that so horrible I hate that people are like that, this is obviously an important issue."
3. Yes, I think that as a courtesy to the curious readers, they should provide an explanation. I would have said something like.. We have chosen to withhold the identity of the tweeter because we believe that it is not needed to get across the point of this article, which is that people need to be more aware and conscious of the things they say, especially online. And that racism is still a prevalent issue that needs to be addressed.
4. Yes, the paper was indicating that there was a pattern. They could have used cases of students not involved in greek life or faculty members or students from other universities, but they chose to direct it towards greek life. It made the case, but I don't exactly agree with their choice to do so in that manner.
5. Yes, they were accountable whenever they posted professor Frank's essay. I agree with a lot of the points that he made, as I explained in my previous answers.
6. I don't think so no. Yeah, they did get her name right but they did not have absolute proof that she was the one that tweeted it (until she made her public apology). There is a chance that one of her friends could have gotten on her twitter account and tweeted it. The likeliness of that is incredibly slim, and I don't believe that was the case here. But you never know.
1.Yes i would have named her twitter name but no i wouldnt have screenshotted a photo of her. Providing the name would allow someone to her page and see her photos anyway.
ReplyDelete2. Yes, if she was already popular at the university and she is talking to a broad audience then i don't see anything wrong with putting her out there, she basically did to herself.
3. Informing the audience why the name is not disclosed isn't necessary because most people wouldn't notice it and find the person on there own. If i were telling the story I would screenshot the tweet and elaborate on the situation.
4. Yes the editor was trying to show a pattern of these incidents indicating that there is racism in the organizations.
5.I think his essay was very accurate and was a good additive to go along with the editors article.
6. Yes it met the standard if the proof is there it shouldn't matter when it is confirmed.
1. I would have run the photo. Once she took the screenshot it became public which makes it ok to run.
ReplyDelete2. I do because if she is widely known this could become public interest in which the tweeter had to be made known. Anything that she could have done could have affected the community so therefore needed to be named.
3. I think if I was a reader and I wanted to know who had done this I would have wanted to know the name of the tweeter. That being said I think if the paper left it out then I would want to have seen a reasoning behind that decision. If I was writing the explanation I would state that the reason I didn’t name, the tweeter was for the reason I didn’t want to make her look bad or defacement if you will.
4. If I understood this story correct it felt like that was the way the reader was supposed to think. If it was not I don’t see the reason of having those two events in the story. I think with those two stories the case could have been made that there was racial insensitivity by members of greek organizations
5. I thought that releasing this essay was a good way to show that not all people agreed with what the Collegian was writing about. I think the professor’s argument was very well written and stated and left very little if nothing up to argument.
6. No, the paper didn’t have a name for the tweeter and the time of publication. If they had been wrong even in the slightest they could have been in serious trouble and should have not released anything to the public without being 100% sure.