Cyberspace - the new frontier for bullies

Isn't Ellie school age? She's probably already old enough for cyber bullying. Even if you are perfect about monitoring her at home, chances are she has computer classes at school? I'd suggest talking with her frequently about cyber bullying and internet safety (how people aren't always who they say they are) when you have discussions about normal bullying (and strangers), since she was dealing with bullies on the school bus recently now's probably a good time. The bright side is it's much easier to walk away from a cyber bully than a real one.

Reply

I think since you already experienced the bullying thing on the bus, it might be good to mention now about it happening on the computer. I think she's still to young to be doing much IMing and chatting online since she wouldn't be able to do that yet at school. I think she is my Trinity's age, 2nd grade so I think it's still a bit soon but....sooner is better than later. My granddaughter isn't interested in the computer at all and I also have a 7 year old grandson and he isn't either but that's more the point too, better to "talk" about it now rather than if/when it should ever happen to her. This way you've talked and she'll know she can come to you. Also, let her know, you'll know where she goes online. I would anyway, don't mean to tell you what to do.

Reply

The naming of Lori Drew has sparked quite a debate indeed. Some major news outlets have chosen to name the perpetrator(s) behind this story such as the New York Times. Some have chosen not to. The mainstream media however has concluded that the blogging community should shoulder the responsibility of first naming the perpetrator behind this story.

The first question I have in this debate is simple. What is new here? Since before the French Revolution, the media has been used to 'out' individuals who's actions seem to bear public relevancy in some way.

Although Lori Drew has not yet been charged in the case of Megan Meier, the media has never required formal charges to be made before running a story. In the case of some journalist like Dan Rather, some media outlets run with stories before even confirming that they're true.

In this particular case, media outlets that have chosen to withhold Lori Drew's identity have done so in consideration of other Drew family members.

I'm wondering if by doing this, the media plans to always withhold the names of interesting persons who outrage the community, if those persons have children. This would certainly be quite a ground-breaking event

Right at this moment, there is a story of a cop who is under investigation in the strange death of one wife and the disappearance of another. The cop in the story has a family, yet the media huddles outside his home relentlessly.

I could go back and list thousands of stories where the media wasted no time in delivering the names and occupations of individuals that were later cleared of any wrong-doing. I've never heard of another instance where the media apologized for naming names.

Don Henley's 'Dirty Laundry' certainly applies well to conduct of most major news outlets.

Lori Drew is a primary subject of the story, she is not a rape victim, and is not a minor. Identifying her breaks no new ground, nor does it deviate from what news outlets do on a daily basis.

I also remind readers that her name and her role in the Megan Meier tragedy were documented as public record. A public record that Lori filed on her own accord. This is a critically important fact in this debate.

News outlets, bloggers and the general public were handed Lori's name and Lori's own self admissions when she herself filed that police report and sought to elevate the entire situation into the public domain.

Had Lori Drew simply acknowledged what she did was wrong, and apologized - the police report that identified her may have never been filed, and the entire situation may have well been kept at the lowest profile.

Will we see the media write about this? Not likely.

Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com

Reply