Back When I Knew Everything: Ethics & Media 3
This one revisits the infamous story of American juvenile delinquent gets caned. And yet another OJ SImpson trial shout out.
July 5, 1994 Reaction Paper #3
The entire country took notice when the teenager Michael Fay was sentenced to six swats with a bamboo cane for vandalizing automobiles in Singapore. The U.S. government stepped in, imploring the Singapore government to not cane the boy. The press was there every step of the way, getting reaction from Fay’s home town, speaking with Singapore citizens, and even analyzing the caning process by speaking to former caning recipients.
The sentence was reduced to four hits, and Fay was punished for his crime. Upon returning to America, Fay and his father both stated that they had no interest in speaking about the situation any further, that they only wanted to put the past behind them.
Accordingly, I was a bit surprised when I turned on the radio the other night and heard the two men speaking with Rick Roberts of KOA radio. They were on the air to profess young Michael’s innocence. He claimed that his confession was coerced after long hours of inhumane treatment. I was not able to listen to the entire show, but before I turned it off, I heard Roberts promote upcoming segments with allegations of U.S. intervention and the Fays’ plans for marketing this story.
I write all of this to speak about privacy. It may be naïve of me to say this, but I do believe that the media were willing to grant his privacy after his return to the states. I am guessing that the Fay family saw a dollar amount that they could obtain by re-introducing this story to the public. By adding some spice and empty threats (they claim that they are going to sue the Singapore government), they hoped to create some interest in their pathetic situation. So I suppose we should give them some credit, because they were able to find some.
People may or may not be sick of the story, but I definitely think that the media should not be blamed for an invasion of privacy. The Fay’s volunteered to give up their privacy for this situation. Several editors decided that there might be a new angle to this story and covered it. The press is not at fault for this story.
What concerns me about all of this is how the private citizen seems to want to forsake privacy for exposure. Ronald Goldman’s mom recently held a press conference lambasting the press for not giving her more coverage. She cited the L.A. papers for not even mentioning her presence in the city. She claimed by not giving her exposure, the press was issuing an “implied” libelous statement that she had no regard for the murder of her own son.
Not only do I think this is ludicrous, but also very scary.
It appears that the press needs to worry about the consequences for respecting an individual’s privacy as well as invading it. The gray line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior seems to get fuzzier when accepted norms suddenly become inherently “implied” libelous. If this woman continues to mount the soapbox to criticize the press, how many new situations will appear, claiming that the press’ silence damaged their reputation.
With people like the Fays and Goldman’s mother around, it continues to get more and more risky to be an agent of the press.
