On the ethics of targeting others

Recent examples from major media outlets targeting harmless individuals demonstrates a major ethical failing - as compassionate persons and responsible writers, commanding a platform. This doesn't mean writers must never target individuals; it means writers must be more careful and thoughtful than they are now.


Opinion writers present arguments in favour of some view or against another: usually the two work in tandem, as per, for example, critiquing homophobic arguments and promoting equal rights. Ideally, writers either target arguments from multiple sources, careful to avoid caricature (Strawman arguments); or directly tackle an individual or individuals’ arguments. Again, it’s usually a mixture of both.

Yet, life and environments are not equal between individuals. This brings in an ethical aspect to presenting an argument, piece of writing or photo that must anchor our decision to publish.

Basically, being right is not enough – even when the other person (so obviously) is wrong.

To give an example, please excuse this dip into personal acts, but I know it best, since it was mine.

Last month, fellow Guardian contributor Holly Baxter tackled an annoyance we both share: celebrity crowd-funding. Though she made some good points, I found the piece wanting in several areas, especially in the way she wrote about the artist Dev Hynes. I wrote a response, but then subsequently removed it. My reasons, as I explained, were due to the enormous amount of backlash she received, dripping with sexism, threats and unnecessary hostility – this is an unfortunate result of celebrity culture and the digital age and is quite common.

My one piece wasn’t going to change the world, but removing it meant one less piece criticising Ms Baxter. I didn’t threaten, namecall, and wasn’t nasty: I tackled arguments I found wrong. Baxter, facing a torrent of responses, might see my piece as yet another criticism – especially from a man – lumping it in with the torrent of negativity greeting her online presence. That doesn’t make her right, of course, but I wouldn’t blame her for that perception considering the environment she was facing.

My perspective of her arguments remains, but the question is whether I needed my readers to know that. I’m just another voice in the whirlwind of online opinion, this one aiming at a woman – which the Internet, at times, is as welcoming toward as Saudi Arabia.

In terms of ethical considerations, there are a two mains areas we writers – and indeed anyone – should be considering.

Principle #1: Does an individual’s actions warrant a response? If so, what response?

What exactly has the person done and does it warrant a response? This seems like an obvious question – but it also seems rarely answered before a response is Tweeted out, written about, etc.

Assuming a response is necessary, we must recognise a response need not be a blogpost or a column: it can be a Tweet, it can be a phonecall, it can be banging your head or screaming into your pillow. Those are all responses, on different platforms, seen by a different number of people. Indeed, not responding is also very important.

Each of those have different degrees of ethical attachments, too: a Tweet threatening to a rape a woman is a response, but unethical. If you’re a columnist at The New York Times, it might also be wrong to target a woman who has cancer because she makes you uncomfortable.

Of course, there might be good reason to tackle individuals, as many did for, say, Elan Gale (including myself but even then it was his supporters), writers who make light of euthanasia, widely-loved celebrities, Pope’s who don’t like gay people, etc. A response is necessary, on a case-by-case basis, due to the target being in some position of power, encouraging or participating in bad beliefs or activities. Our writing should help dismantle these negative aspects.

Holly Baxter had bad arguments, but did not warrant a piece: Elan Gale directly encouraged  horrible messages and uncivil responses at a non-existent woman, because he was on the side of the angels (apparently). Baxter, too, is a woman whereas Gale is a successful, straight white American man (which John Scalzi famously calls the lowest difficulty setting). Thus, even in terms of identity, things are not equal in how the world treats such people. Being ethical means taking all this into account.

Principle #2 Does writing and publishing this matter more than the person’s sense of safety and security.

A difficult aspect to balance is when someone’s sense of security and safety transmutes into uncontested privileged positions and viewpoints. No one should be beyond criticism for his or her actions or views, but again just because an action or belief is wrong is not sufficient reason to respond – or respond publicly.

We don’t want people to build walls of absolutism in terms of their moral views such that s/he is never wrong and criticism is only from those who are threatening and hateful.

That is, if the only response a target perceives to her views is character attacks, namecalling, threats, she might feel insecure but she probably won’t change her mind. Thus, her opposition all get branded as idiotic, sexist, scientistic, conservative, or whatever: thus, the best, more nuanced examples of the opposition are painted in the same colour as the fringe. Nuance isn’t sexy for attention and therefore for news or headlines.

By being silent, writers might encourage only the loudest, stupidest voices who vaguely share a writer's view, but sometimes it may be necessary so that writers can speak later. Or perhaps in a different way.

Or perhaps not at all.

This is the dilemma: by being silent, an opposition consists only of fury, not reason (though fury and reason need not be opposed or mutually exclusive – but here I mean you aren’t threatening murder or violence.) Yet, that doesn’t mean absolute silence or no response at all, as indicated in the previous point. I don’t know how to answer this on a broad level, since I worry about making a principled stance. I think examining on a case-by-case basis, asking ourselves especially the first question, might help – though again, I don’t know. I would at least caution being part of the pile-on.

So, we must be sensitive to wanting to show a target is wrong. We must recognise we don’t want to always be silent and allow for walls of absolutism to harden around their views. But we also don't want idiocy to be louder because we are silent - but at the same time, we want to recognise a target's safety and security.

At the very least, we must recognise we’re talking about people and the way the world treats different people, of different sexes, different races, different positions of power, is not equal.

Example #1 of Unequal Platforms: Sacco and Kaczynski

A recent example of this was part of the Justine Sacco’s Twitter Saga.  BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski, with over a 100,000 Twitter followers and commanding an enormous platform in general, linked to Sacco’s terrible racist Tweet.

Sacco at the time, I believe, had less than 300 Followers and was not widely-known. Yet, for whatever reason, Kaczynski decided it appropriate to tell his many mostly young progressive (i.e. not racist) Followers about this unknown person. I’m uncertain whether Kaczynski started the Sacco antagonism – I think he and others were notified by a reader – but it would be hard to say he didn’t contribute significantly to drawing attention to her. Knowing people and keyboard courage, especially when targeting women on the Internet, it’s hard to make a defence of Kaczynski here.

Think about the disparity of platform: Kaczynski is well known across the Internet and Buzzfeed has a huge following. Sacco was almost completely unknown. Yet, Kaczynski saw fit to publicly shame Sacco. This wasn’t Steve Martin or some other powerful celebrity, with a PR firm and agent and manager: it was a harmless women travelling to South Africa – where, due to Twitter outrage, people photographed and tracked her.

I’m not blaming Kaczynski solely for this: I blame anyone who participated in publicly shaming and threatening her.

The point is there’s no clear ethical reason for Kaczynski to have brought people’s attention to Sacco.

(Media) people decide what makes the news – things aren’t imbued with some magic power of "being newsworthy". Kaczynski and others help make it so. This brings attention and attention brings nastiness.

This means, we fail ethically by targeting people using platforms as big as a BuzzFeed writer's to laugh at and mock and snark and hate an innocent woman who made a stupid Tweet, knowing that digitally pointing at something also means unlocking the floodgates of vitriol.

(Anyone can be targeted for making stupid jokes that make us seem bizarre and bigoted when we’re not. This should worry us. Think about if you or a loved one was Sacco.)

Example #2 of Unequal Platforms: Kellers and Adams

The powerful American media couple, Bill and Emma Keller, recently decided to target a harmless woman, in what Mary Elizabeth Williams dubs a “tag-team of opinionated horribleness”; with Emma Keller writing a now-removed piece in the Guardian and Bill Keller a The New York Times op-ed - two of the biggest and most respected papers in the world.

As Daniel D’Addario summarises:

“Lisa Bonchek Adams [the target] is a mother of three living with Stage 4 breast cancer. She blogs and tweets about what she is undergoing and the decisions she is making about her health; she does so frequently and to a large audience that’s rooting for her. And to a prominent husband-wife pair of journalists, she’s somehow offensive.”

There’s no need for me to go into what specifically was wrong with each piece, since plenty have already done so. I want to look at the Kellers in their ethical failing at publishing (and for being allowed to publish) their target pieces. 

What was gained by examining Adam’s writing, blogging, and Tweeting? Is there any evidence her doing so encouraged bad or harmful behaviour? Is there evidence to suggest at all that she encourages unrealistic expectations? Like so many targeted by powerful media types, there was no indication Adams had done anything so wrong it was worth writing about. Yet the Kellers' writing went through anyway as did the publication.

Now of course we don’t only write target pieces when people do wrong and even praising pieces can indicate some degree of proper criticism. Yet, to get factual details so wrong, as both Kellers did; to portray Adams as doing something deceitful or bad (when all evidence suggests she’s doing the opposite); and to do so from such high, powerful platforms – twice – at one target is to crumple a sense integrity as writers.

These op-ed pieces weren't diary entries or personal letters: they were on huge platforms commanding a large audience. This meant Adams’ family would read bizarre accounts of her; it meant Adams wasting time correcting instead of using her time for better things; it meant Adams portrayal in two major publications, that influence people’s views, would cast her as unfavourable and dangerous for cancer patients.

Did these pieces need to be written? Was anything gained? I can see little purpose, aside from excellent criticisms of the Keller pieces.

I’m not claiming that because you have a certain disease or sickness or whatever you get moral immunity and can never be criticised: but, as I’ve indicated, criticism must pass an ethical standard. There’s no justified reason provided by the Kellers to think Adams has done anything at all to warrant targeting - from such powerful platforms and such powerful people.

Example #3 of Unequal Platforms: Hannan and “Dr V”

Grantland is a major sports publication. It has excellent writers, as per my favourite essayist Tom Bissell. I’m not a sports person at all, but this longform Grantland piece on a specific golf putter and its mysterious creator has rightfully being viewed as callous and horrible to the putter’s creator, the late Dr V.

The writer, Caleb Hannan, became interested in this putter and the science behind it. Upon finally contacting Dr V., “she insisted that our discussion and any subsequent article about her putter focus on the science and not the scientist.” The only way to continue the communication and engagement with her was for Hannan to have agreed to this.

Quite obviously, he did not, as he began discovering all sorts of inconsistencies in her background and writes about these. His investigation led to him discovering that Dr V had been born male. This might be surprising – but it’s no more surprising, in this context, than finding out someone was born with a different name. Hannan doesn’t indicate why Dr V’s original sex is relevant.

As Mike Handler says:

"[Hannan] writes about Dr. V’s existence as a trans woman in the narrative of her apparently unverifiable claims about her work history and education, tarring her gender by association as another potential lie or deception or inconsistency amongst many. Any number of human beings of all gender histories have engaged in exaggeration or deception about their education, work, or accomplishments; why is her purported behavior tied to her gender in this story?"

Perhaps one could say it’s relevant in terms of Dr V’s origin and trying to cover up her history, but so what? I don’t know how to write about trans individuals, but I would at least acknowledge that “outing” someone as being born a different sex, revealing a history she does not want revealed, is regarded as immoral (especially when she requested this).

This fosters an already negative and antagonistic environment that the trans community faces everyday – they're called “crazy”, “deceptive”, and all sorts of idiotic things. Even if there is justification for linking her sex at birth as part of a series of cover-ups, why this needed to be such an important focus for Hannan is not clear. (It’s a bit creepy, too.)

However, the other horrible part is that Dr V. specifically asked that Hannan not discuss her at all; that he not publish her history. I’m not sure how that’s meant to work, but it seems strange for a reporter to casually write about a subject wanting assurances of nondisclosure before proceeding in an article that discloses so much. Isn’t this article more a confession that Hannan broke ethical protocol – even on so basic a level?

Added to this that Dr V had a history of trauma and problems, tried to commit suicide and indicated that her life would worsen if he went ahead – then committed suicide while Hannan was busy with this piece – and it’s the prime example of publishing mattering more than persons.

As editor Daniel Jiminez Tweeted:

“It might have been hard to discuss Dr. V's fabricated past w/o getting into her #trans identity.  Which might be why you let the story go.” “If you choose to move forward with the story, I still don't think that the #trans issue is relevant.” “There's a persistent misbelief that being #trans is being deceptive. ‘She lied about her physics credentials’ would have been enough.”

Indeed, even ignoring the trans issue in Hannan’s failure (which is difficult), her request was ignored for the story, for the platform. Dr V. took her life soon after, I think, Hannan rejected her pleas to not publish. We mustn’t blame Hannan for her suicide, but we can’t ignore the relation considering what Hannan himself relates. I would rather we didn’t speculate without facts about his culpability and instead focus solely on this piece: and indeed, even doing so, it’s a disaster of journalism, a failure of ethical conduct, inhumane and dismissive of an individual’s right to privacy, and crass in its ignorance of a world that hates trans people.

Dan Solomon Tweeted:

“If we lived in a better world, the fact that a person is transgender wouldn’t be interesting at all.” “Exploiting the fact that we live in a world where that’s a sensational detail in order to sell your story is reprehensible.” “And while I understand why Caleb Hannan felt compelled to try to sell that story, I can’t understand at all why [Grantland] published it.

Here again is another example of a harmless woman being targeted by a major platform, for a writer to publish a story. Indeed, she was targeted because she appeared to have done something extraordinary, but a little nudge sent Hannan down the rabbit hole of public assassination through disclosing information and details that would hurt. This wasn’t some criminal, some famous celebrity beating up his wife: it was a harmless person, who wanted privacy, who had a history of trauma and had pleaded with Hannan not to write.

(Maria Dahvana Headley has an excellent response to Hannan's awful piece, that touches on the overall themes here.)

Conclusion

I realise the irony: I’m targeting individuals here. But I hope, by so doing, you can see that my reasons are ethically justified, unlike the people here: they all did wrong, as I’ve outlined. Targeting individuals can be moral, but it needs to be done with a lot of care – certainly a great more than shown by these three examples.

Similarly, I’m not writing about unknown people, but fairly powerful media types who have used major media platforms to target downwards. The old rule of thumb that journalism should “punch down” is a good one, depending on whether we can justify what “down” means: I’ve hopefully shown that the targets were/are below these writers, in terms of power, in terms of group dynamics and politics (that all were women should be of note - not because women are lesser than men, but that the Internet so easily hates women).

I also wanted to illustrate my point with these examples, since I am a bit hesitant of criticising on a principled basis. Though each share a misappropriation of platform, they also are wrong in different ways for publishing. (Which should remind us that these were written in places where often a decision from another, usually higher-up person, agrees to publish.)

It’s not that I want these pieces removed: I think they should never have been written or published in the first place. We need to recognise sensitivity and moral responsibility going forward.

A platform can be your massive Twitter account, your publication, your powerful blog. But we need to remember we’re dealing with persons, not digital dots on a screen: Words matter and the world is unequal. We should be using words to target proper harmful individuals, not harmless (indeed, we use words to help the harmless and helpful). We need to recognise pile-ons and politics and avoid contributing, doing what we can to help create a safer, better world.

The world won’t die because you didn’t publish or Tweet, but someone’s life might be a bit worse because you did.

Image Credit: solarseven / Shutterstock

Scientists find a horrible new way cocaine can damage your brain

Swiss researchers identify new dangers of modern cocaine.

Getty Images
Mind & Brain
  • Cocaine cut with anti-worming adulterant levamisole may cause brain damage.
  • Levamisole can thin out the prefrontal cortex and affect cognitive skills.
  • Government health programs should encourage testing of cocaine for purity.
Keep reading Show less

How to vaccinate the world’s most vulnerable? Build global partnerships.

Pfizer's partnerships strengthen their ability to deliver vaccines in developing countries.

Susan Silbermann, Global President of Pfizer Vaccines, looks on as a health care worker administers a vaccine in Rwanda. Photo: Courtesy of Pfizer.
Sponsored
  • Community healthcare workers face many challenges in their work, including often traveling far distances to see their clients
  • Pfizer is helping to drive the UN's sustainable development goals through partnerships.
  • Pfizer partnered with AMP and the World Health Organization to develop a training program for healthcare workers.
Keep reading Show less
Politics & Current Affairs

Political division is nothing new. Throughout American history there have been numerous flare ups in which the political arena was more than just tense but incideniary. In a letter addressed to William Hamilton in 1800, Thomas Jefferson once lamented about how an emotional fervor had swept over the populace in regards to a certain political issue at the time. It disturbed him greatly to see how these political issues seemed to seep into every area of life and even affect people's interpersonal relationships. At one point in the letter he states:

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."

Today, we Americans find ourselves in a similar situation, with our political environment even more splintered due to a number of factors. The advent of mass digital media, siloed identity-driven political groups, and a societal lack of understanding of basic discursive fundamentals all contribute to the problem.

Civil discourse has fallen to an all time low.

The question that the American populace needs to ask itself now is: how do we fix it?


Discursive fundamentals need to be taught to preserve free expression

In a 2017 Free Speech and Tolerance Survey by Cato, it was found that 71% of Americans believe that political correctness had silenced important discussions necessary to our society. Many have pointed to draconian university policies regarding political correctness as a contributing factor to this phenomenon.

It's a great irony that, colleges, once true bastions of free-speech, counterculture and progressiveness, have now devolved into reactionary tribal politics.

Many years ago, one could count on the fact that universities would be the first places where you could espouse and debate any controversial idea without consequence. The decline of staple subjects that deal with the wisdom of the ancients, historical reference points, and civic discourse could be to blame for this exaggerated partisanship boiling on campuses.

Young people seeking an education are given a disservice when fed biased ideology, even if such ideology is presented with the best of intentions. Politics are but one small sliver for society and the human condition at large. Universities would do well to instead teach the principles of healthy discourse and engagement across the ideological spectrum.

The fundamentals of logic, debate and the rich artistic heritage of western civilization need to be the central focus of an education. They help to create a well-rounded citizen that can deal with controversial political issues.

It has been found that in the abstract, college students generally support and endorse the first amendment, but there's a catch when it comes to actually practicing it. This was explored in a Gallup survey titled: Free Expression on Campus: What college students think about First amendment issues.

In their findings the authors state:

"The vast majority say free speech is important to democracy and favor an open learning environment that promotes the airing of a wide variety of ideas. However, the actions of some students in recent years — from milder actions such as claiming to be threatened by messages written in chalk promoting Trump's candidacy to the most extreme acts of engaging in violence to stop attempted speeches — raise issues of just how committed college students are to
upholding First Amendment ideals.

Most college students do not condone more aggressive actions to squelch speech, like violence and shouting down speakers, although there are some who do. However, students do support many policies or actions that place limits on speech, including free speech zones, speech codes and campus prohibitions on hate speech, suggesting that their commitment to free speech has limits. As one example, barely a majority think handing out literature on controversial issues is "always acceptable."

With this in mind, the problems seen on college campuses are also being seen on a whole through other pockets of society and regular everyday civic discourse. Look no further than the dreaded and cliche prospect of political discussion at Thanksgiving dinner.

Talking politics at Thanksgiving dinner

As a result of this increased tribalization of views, it's becoming increasingly more difficult to engage in polite conversation with people possessing opposing viewpoints. The authors of a recent Hidden Tribes study broke down the political "tribes" in which many find themselves in:

  • Progressive Activists: younger, highly engaged, secular, cosmopolitan, angry.
  • Traditional Liberals: older, retired, open to compromise, rational, cautious.
  • Passive Liberals: unhappy, insecure, distrustful, disillusioned.
  • Politically Disengaged: young, low income, distrustful, detached, patriotic, conspiratorial
  • Moderates: engaged, civic-minded, middle-of-the-road, pessimistic, Protestant.
  • Traditional Conservatives: religious, middle class, patriotic, moralistic.
  • Devoted Conservatives: white, retired, highly engaged, uncompromising,
    Patriotic.

Understanding these different viewpoints and the hidden tribes we may belong to will be essential in having conversations with those we disagree with. This might just come to a head when it's Thanksgiving and you have a mix of many different personalities, ages, and viewpoints.

It's interesting to note the authors found that:

"Tribe membership shows strong reliability in predicting views across different political topics."

You'll find that depending on what group you identify with, that nearly 100 percent of the time you'll believe in the same way the rest of your group constituents do.

Here are some statistics on differing viewpoints according to political party:

  • 51% of staunch liberals say it's "morally acceptable" to punch Nazis.
  • 53% of Republicans favor stripping U.S. citizenship from people who burn the American flag.
  • 51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people's preferred gender pronouns.
  • 65% of Republicans say NFL players should be fired if they refuse to stand for the anthem.
  • 58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts.
  • 47% of Republicans favor bans on building new mosques.

Understanding the fact that tribal membership indicates what you believe, can help you return to the fundamentals for proper political engagement

Here are some guidelines for civic discourse that might come in handy:

  • Avoid logical fallacies. Essentially at the core, a logical fallacy is anything that detracts from the debate and seeks to attack the person rather than the idea and stray from the topic at hand.
  • Practice inclusion and listen to who you're speaking to.
  • Have the idea that there is nothing out of bounds for inquiry or conversation once you get down to an even stronger or new perspective of whatever you were discussing.
  • Keep in mind the maxim of : Do not listen with the intent to reply. But with the intent to understand.
  • We're not trying to proselytize nor shout others down with our rhetoric, but come to understand one another again.
  • If we're tied too closely to some in-group we no longer become an individual but a clone of someone else's ideology.

Civic discourse in the divisive age

Debate and civic discourse is inherently messy. Add into the mix an ignorance of history, rabid politicization and debased political discourse, you can see that it will be very difficult in mending this discursive staple of a functional civilization.

There is still hope that this great divide can be mended, because it has to be. The Hidden Tribes authors at one point state:

"In the era of social media and partisan news outlets, America's differences have become
dangerously tribal, fueled by a culture of outrage and taking offense. For the combatants,
the other side can no longer be tolerated, and no price is too high to defeat them.
These tensions are poisoning personal relationships, consuming our politics and
putting our democracy in peril.


Once a country has become tribalized, debates about contested issues from
immigration and trade to economic management, climate change and national security,
become shaped by larger tribal identities. Policy debate gives way to tribal conflicts.
Polarization and tribalism are self-reinforcing and will likely continue to accelerate.
The work of rebuilding our fragmented society needs to start now. It extends from
re-connecting people across the lines of division in local communities all the way to
building a renewed sense of national identity: a bigger story of us."

We need to start teaching people how to approach subjects from less of an emotional or baseless educational bias or identity, especially in the event that the subject matter could be construed to be controversial or uncomfortable.

This will be the beginning of a new era of understanding, inclusion and the defeat of regressive philosophies that threaten the core of our nation and civilization.