The Price of Online Shame: Q&A

By Pierce K. Kozlowski

Editor's Note: This is an experimental format, where questions about the subject are written in the style of a journalist and the author answers them in the style of natural speech. However, the answers are more thorough then a normal interivew would permit and it has the weight of in-text research to refine credibility, allowing the reader to view the opinion of many experts assimilated in each response. Hope you enjoy :)

"In her TED talk, Monica Lewinsky discussed her experience with public shaming. Can you share your thoughts on her presentation? Specifically, could you highlight any lines or ideas that resonated with you?"

Sure. After having an affair with Clinton in September of 1998, it's apparent Lewinsky thought of her experience as a “deeply” regrettable “mistake.” In her speech, she colorfully characterized the undergoing as getting swept up into a “political, legal, and media maelstrom,” which had “broke online” in January of 1998 thanks to the digital revolution – something she notes as being the first time the internet “usurped” the three traditional news mediums of television, radio, and the paper. “Overnight, I went from being a completely private figure,” said Lewinsky, “to a publicly humiliated one, worldwide.” She mentioned “virtual stone-throwers” left a bevy of nasty comments – which today is called “cyber-bullying” – and sent her nasty emails, and she even alluded to receiving death threats, which impacted her mental health to the point where her mother had her shower with the door open to countervail any opportunity for self-harm (Lewinsky).  

Had I lived prior to 2004 when these events unfolded and the digital age was still in its infancy, I’d probably say that seeing all of this would be surreal. However, because I live in a time where scandal-centered cyber-bullying has since sprouted from its early roots in 1998, I’m not only unsurprised but was expecting a greater emotional impact from her account; that’s not to say her account wasn’t impactful, it was! I relay this detail since it speaks more to the technological landscape I’ve been enculturated in since that time, highlighting how “online harassment” of this kind has gone from “revolutionary” in the late 90s to commonplace in the early 2010s. 

Two ideas stuck out while listening to her speak. Firstly, the toll this new, toxic, cultural practice has on those it triangulates on. “The price [of public shaming] does not measure the cost to the victim, which . . . women, minorities, and members of the LGBTQ community have paid,” says Lewinsky (15:47-57). It has real effects that lead to horrifying phenomena like suicidality, as Lewinsky points out with Rutgers University Student Tyler Clementi, who killed himself in 2010 after a video of him being intimate with another man surfaced on the internet (courtesy of his then-roommate) and later jumped to his death from the cyberbullying that incurred (9:26-10:03). Tyler is not the only one, but is a famous example of what this new culture has done to its victims.

The second idea is the money motive for this new, toxic, cultural practice. Lewinsky says, “The invasion of others is a raw material, efficiently and ruthlessly mined, packed and sold at profit. A marketplace has emerged where public humiliation is a commodity, and shame is an industry” (16:05-16:21). She could not be more correct, I wrote a piece on a similar problem wherein the new age of social media has fostered a less robust social fabric, caused in part by the click-based “curated content” of their algorithms, which is centered entirely on prosperity instead of quality – making the user the commodity, encouraging aggressive advertising that leads to impulsive purchases, and proactively causing the formation of echo chambers as a consequence (Kozlowski). This is connected in part to what Lewinsky is saying because such phenomena are a precursor to the type of mob mindset seen in the echo chambers of online harassment.

"Do you believe that the 'rush to judgment enabled by technology' poses a significant risk too?"

Yes, of course, Lewinsky is correct that the “rush to judgment enabled by technology” is dangerous. An example is one she has already mentioned, per our former response. 18-year-old Tyler Clementi, a Rutgers University student, jumped from the George Washington Bridge in September of 2010, after a video of him kissing another man was leaked, and the cyberbullying that followed caused him suicidal ideation and eventually, suicidality (Foderaro). Another story includes 16-year-old Amanda Todd, who hanged herself in October of 2012 one month after uploading a video recounting how she had met a stranger online in the 7th grade who convinced her to expose her chest, where she was then blackmailed afterward and the images circulated around the internet years after (Dean). In both cases, we find a reward system across social media wherein the private affairs or information of private individuals is sensationalized by the algorithm online, from YouTube to FaceBook, left completely unchecked by any outside moderation, and the “clicks” (or engagement) that inevitably resulted created profit, particularly in the case of Amanda Todd, where accounts of FaceBook used her chest photos as profile pictures and YouTube profited massively when her video garnered north of 17 million views. All responsibility of media is effectively cleansed or dodged for the sake of content engagement, resulting in more clicks and higher ratings. 

The way sensationalism overshadows accurate findings in its reporting is the same in every type of story, whether it relates to the political news cycle or the most recent suicide caused by cyberbullying: firstly, the amplification of language to exaggerate details or the surface-level presentation is employed for the sake of sensationalism. Despite the left-leaning partisanship of CBS, they ran a good piece breaking down this kind of language when Trump said things like “No one will be safe in Biden’s America” during his campaign trail to characterize the other side (Watson). Another case is when reporters speak without all the facts on the ground for the sake of a (misleading) headline to attract readers. An example includes when CNN ran the “Covington Catholic Boys” story in 2016, falsely asserting that the boys were harassing Indigenous protestors based on one video when this was hardly the case (Flanagan). Both the amplification of language coupled with a lack of facts, specifically to craft attractive but misleading headlines, are exactly how sensationalized reporting can overshadow the reality of the story they're covering.

"In your personal experience, have you witnessed instances of online shaming as described here, and if so, what was the outcome?"

To a mild degree, I can recall having witnessed instances of online bullying, but it had been so normalized in my mind (not the practice but its occurrence, similar to school shootings since the time of Columbine), that I cannot recall specific instances. Usually, the situation was someone had a compromising video of some kind shared over Snapchat or a rumor of a student doing something that would hurt their reputation in some way if misconstrued – I cannot remember what would follow precisely, but the school district would attempt to get involved to moderate the situation in whatever way they were able while working closely with the affected student (and presumably their family) to avoid the aftermath of the aforementioned cyberbullying cases (i.e., Clementi, Todd). If I had to guess, the consequences were as follows: the student is profoundly embarrassed due to the release of private and potentially compromising information, the school hosts an intervention, and it might take anywhere between one to three weeks for the student to make a full social recovery or comeback. 

"In your opinion, what measures could be taken to support individuals facing online shaming?

To help someone who is put in the position of the victim and harassed online, an intervention should be initiated or sought after by the first person to learn (or catch wind) of a potential, significant cyberbullying incident. Whether that is facilitated by the school of the minor, the parent of the child, the friend of the victim . . . etc, etc. Depending on the severity of the bullying, a mental health check-in is in order. A psychological evaluation to determine the necessity for counseling if necessary is basically the first and very logical first step, as well as keeping close tabs on the person if they are particularly young or susceptible to volatile emotional swings which can range from mania to catatonia, allowing for the very real possibility of sudden suicide.

Do you believe there should be legal consequences for online harassment and cyberbullying?"

As far as the internet goes, there should absolutely be a legal punishment against those who levy emotional injury against another party (e.g., blackmail, dissemination of private information and every form it takes), not only when this is unprompted, but with the exact intent of cruelty and injury, emotional, psychological, and otherwise. Even in the case of “pranks” or “playing around,” this should be punishable. For minors, rehabilitation programs (built from the ground up, not existing ones) should be instituted to lower the risk factors for this cultural behavior going forward. There is no place worth its salt, where countries founded upon the traditional English common law, do not have laws against harassment and bullying in effect, this should be no different online since it results in the same effect, and has much of the same intention, with the only distinguishing detail being the medium by which it is committed. For this reason, cyberbullying and online harassment should be prosecutable to the full extent of the law, with punishments being within the domain of reason.    

"Do you think the portrayal of Lewinsky contributed to the phenomenon of public shaming?

Oh, the media’s portrayal of Lewinsky contributed hugely to public shaming. She was depicted as a “seductress” (Bennet), amplified by the fact that she had an affair with a high-profile person – something which was specifically used to “mock” and vilify her (Loofbourow). As Lewinsky stated herself, the scandal was exacerbated by the advent of the digital age. 

"What societal factors do you think enabled this online shaming?

The societal factors that would play a role in the shame culture spoken of already are most likely the enforcment of civil norms, or the individual expectations of people and the mass projection and imposition of those expectations on those who deviate in the public light. As Russell Blackford of The Conversation says, this leads to a culture of “scrutinizing each other for purity,” leading to exactly what occurred in the Lewinsky scandal (Blackford). Another variable is the fact that perpetrators of online harassment and cyberbullying are shielded by the patina of anonymity, so the moral burden of what they’ve done to the other person does not weigh on their conscious as easily, nor does it alleviate but in fact (at least in part) contributes to the possibility of cyberbullying (Mohammed). 

"Has the evolution of the Internet and digital communication changed the landscape of public shaming compared to the pre-digital era?"

One easy differentiation between the modern age and pre-modern age of digital sharing, one made by Farah Mohammed of JSTOR Daily, is the fact that information can be disseminated at a much faster pace and to a much wider demographic, making “mass humiliation . . . more scarring, and potentially more dangerous” (Mohammed). As Lewinsky herself rightly pointed out, this problem makes humiliation of this kind a commodity since it is entirely driven by engagement, and thus profit, with no outside moderation or higher principle to safeguard potential victims from becoming actual victims – in the worst case scenarios, this leads to things like “young people taking their own lives and adults losing their livelihoods” (Scheff). Lastly, online shaming has the quality of being far more permanent and consequently, far more corrosive to the person (Hughes).  

"What ethical considerations do you believe individuals should prioritize when sharing content online, taking into account the potential impact on others?"

The ethical responsibilities of individuals when sharing content online are as follows: you have a moral imperative to treat others as you’d want to be treated, which is rightly called the Golden Rule. That would include not doing anything with the deliberate intention of ruining a person’s “reputation,” exposing a person’s address by “doxxing,” getting a person fired from their job, or anything legally or socially adjacent, insofar as such a thing is cruel, unusual, unprompted, unreasonable and contrary to the welfare of the person in question, lest there is an ambiguity caused by some complicating detail between the victim and victimizer where it is not so obviously one-sided (Shannon). 

"What ethical responsibilities do you think journalists and media organizations bear in striking a balance between the public's right to information and individuals' rights to privacy and dignity?"

As far as media, journalists, and reporters are concerned, their rights against law enforcement and government officials are outlined by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). However, when it concerns their duties to everyone as a whole, high profile to everyday citizens alike, they have a moral imperative to adequately “weigh privacy against the public interest” or conduct any such investigation that would unlawfully and unfairly invade someone’s privacy without the (unlikely) explicit consent of the person in question (Brewer).

"How do you see media literacy education playing a role in empowering the public to critically assess news stories, differentiating between responsible journalism and sensationalism?"

The most important aspect of media literacy is it teaches individuals, especially the younger generations, how to critically consider the news they consume and how news consumption personally affects them (CommonSenseMedia). The other two aspects are crucial: on the one hand, it teaches people how to spot what has been comedically overused as “fake news” during the formation of their opinions (Kleemans), whereas it also teaches people to discern the “persuasive intent” of what it is they’re reading, especially with reference to marketing (Vinney).  

"How does media irresponsibility contribute to the perpetuation of stereotypes and biases? Considering the influence of media in shaping societal attitudes and opinions, what role does it play in this regard?"

The media can perpetuate stereotypes and biases in several ways. In a study conducted by Florian Arendt, much of the work is performed by the audience in their selectivity: “prejudiced individuals” avoided “prejudice-challenging counter-stereotypical news” alternatives; there is also verifiable, positive support for preference-based reinforcement (Arendt). Both of these problems are, whether intentionally or accidentally, taken advantage of by members of the media for the sake of engagement, which can contribute to biases or stereotypes – the most obvious case so far being the depiction of Lewinsky as a “seductress” because she slept with a high profile person who she was working for and was not married to.  

"Can you discuss instances where you think media responsibility was compromised in the pursuit of higher ratings or increased engagement?"

In the same vein as the last question, the media can shape attitudes and views in several ways. For partisan media (which is almost all media), this is especially true with the concept of “Selective Reporting:” It’s when outlets can cherry-pick what stories and what side of the story to cover, giving the illusion that the situation is being presented in its totality or with the greatest accuracy. A recent example is when the work of certain photographers was used by NYJ, CNN, and AP. Those photographers had taken photographs alongside Hamas right before the October 7th attack on Israel, and they were rightfully suspected of being potentially tipped off by Hamas. When Prime Minister Netanyahu and the GPO made a statement shining a spotlight on the matter, the aforementioned left-leaning agencies like the Associated Press made an evasive and cautiously worded comment defending themselves without drawing too much attention to the matter (Bauder), while right-leaning media like Breitbart replied by overviewing the identity of those photographers, provided formal statements by Israeli agencies in full, and discussed how certain American MSM agencies have historically used “stringers” (free-lance photographers) who sympathize with anti-Israel terrorist groups (Pollack). This is an instance where the right "appears" to give a more holistic report over the left, but it cuts both ways constantly, and there is no guarantee you’re ever getting the “full view.” Selective Reporting accounts for a majority of the control the media has when it comes to disseminating a narrative, framing the narrative, and agenda-setting the narrative towards a particular end.

"Are you a responsible consumer of media? Have any online experiences changed your views on online shaming or altered your media habits? If so, what happened, and if not, what kinds of online events could potentially prompt a shift in your perspective?"

Yes, I believe I am a responsible consumer of media insofar as I am able to critically evaluate everything I read against the principle of reason and what I already know; I acquire information from a widely diversified pool of sources; I have a strong command of the different biases in the news cycle, the different forms they take, and infer the positions which side will take at the outset; and I fact check, cross reference, and maintain the practice of readily changing my conceptions or understanding when more accurate information is delivered over the course of an issue.

Nothing of note has personally impacted or moved me to have a sudden change, large or small, on public shaming. I have always been against it since I’ve been aware of its occurrence. I make a serious and meaningful effort to follow the Golde Rule in how I treat others, both in-person and online. I recall always having made an effort to do this and will continue to do so if I have anything to say about it. Since I already practice and maintain the moral and socially adjusted view of treating others well across all dimensions of interaction, I cannot imagine I will encounter anything public shaming related that will strike me to reform or further progress my view – lest my creativity is too narrow since there is always room to grow, but it is odd to speculate what that would look like in this sense since I am under the reasonable impression that unless someone I know personally is affected by public shaming, my view on it still would not change in any significant way, nor do I see, at this time, good reason to change it.

"What accountability measures could curb online shaming, and how might they be implemented? And if you could change online interactions to address this issue, what would be your first step?"

Okay, so there are three, and there should at least be these three, which are but are not limited to: platform policies, legal policies, and cultural awareness. Platform policies should have high-quality moderation teams, that is to say, professional work staff large in scale, who are responsive to the community and consistently uphold community guidelines (e.g., Reddit’s “Don’t Forget the Person” rule). Legal policies are an excellent deterrent since they take the issue seriously, illustrated by the time, expenses, and official nature of lawsuits – moreover, several jurisdictions, such as Connecticut, recognize online crimes like cyberbullying, defamation, online harassment, and public shaming as legitimate offenses (Ruane). Lastly, cultural awareness pertains to educational awareness since education shapes cultures, in the sense that education shapes group priorities, which shapes group cultures. Dedicating meaningful depictions, explanations, competent demonstrations, and role models to younger students by integrating them into their curricula is the way by which this is accomplished, and it begins by explaining the Golden Rule and its significance.

There’s a reason it’s a virtue across every world myth, why it’s mentioned in every religion, and constitutes the fundamental moral law of Christianity. If this is not taught, then any approach deviating from it is a mistake, and I say this declaratively and conclusively – any moral philosopher worth their salt must share in this consensus. In response to the second to last question, I would change the way people interact according to Matthew 22:39, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” since the complete realization of this command within every individual would bring about the cessation of sin and moral wrongness in a complete and utter sense, effectively halting online shaming, any similar crimes, and consequently, all other forms of evil in every degree.   

"How can individuals effectively support victims of online shaming and harassment? Is it a personal responsibility or part of a larger collective effort?"

The best approach to addressing victims of cyberbullying encouraging the victim to seek professional help, especially since the symptoms of online shaming are often strikingly similar and positively correlated with PTSD (Saraiya). On an individual level, people can simply be nicer to each other, since you and I have a duty to act well and to admonish bullies – people understand this to be the case within their own hearts, there is no confusion as to what’s right lest someone is profoundly, cognitively impaired or poorly socialized. This is partly reflected in the fact that roughly 66% of Americans in a self-report study indicated that they “encourage” their friends to be kinder to people, according to the Huffington Post (Scheff). On a larger scale, however, something bigger has taken place: the White House has instituted a task force to specifically focus its efforts on improving the conditions of and lowering the victimization rates around “Online Harassment and Abuse” (House). 

Do you think individuals are realistically inclined to risk themselves to help others in such situations? Why or why not?"

It is unrealistic to expect any immediate changes of this kind in the general population since Pew Research found that online harassment has worsened over the years, with 41% reporting experiences of harassment and 25% reporting severe harassment (Vogels). However, it is not unrealistic to have an optimistic view over the long term since research-based interventions begin with reasonably budgeted, properly structured programs – which are instituted at the primary public school level – that outline all the risk factors and downright inappropriate and unsocialized behavior that characterizes online shaming and cyberbullying so they know “what” the problem is and “why” it’s a problem. Beginning early with children will counteract and break the cycle of the outrageously corrosive behavior that’s part and parcel of the current generations. 

"What obstacles do journalists encounter when covering delicate subjects like mental health, sexual assault, or discrimination?"

According to an article from the Center for Public Integrity, there are three major risk factors for journalists working on stories that are “sensitive or controversial” in nature. The greatest would be physical danger, which is especially true when reporting on organized crime in less developed countries. Associated with the former point, there are financial risks since investigating such organizations can incur lawsuits, especially if the journalist makes themself libeled for defamation by falsely accusing others of a crime. There is also a profound tax on the mental well-being of the journalist if the issue is unusually disturbing in nature. Risk factors for mental health, at least in relation to the latter, are “depression, anxiety, or post-traumatic stress” (Delbert).       

"In your view, how can journalists responsibly illuminate these issues through reporting without resorting to sensationalism?"

Fortunately, responsible reporting does not entail sensationalized reporting, nor is it possible for sensationalized reporting to be responsible. In this sense, then, responsible reporting means keeping a level of “neutrality and impartiality” on the subject, and reporting on the aforesaid sensitive topics with “respect and sensitivity” (Delbert). This is clearly outlined in detail by the same Center for Public Integrity in a separate statement relating to the ethics of journalism. This question was answered at length in question two, which I recapitulated in question six. I’d recommend referencing the former if you’re looking for a supplement to this answer. 

"What are the risks of media insensitivity when covering tragedies or vulnerable populations?"

Media insensitivity when reporting on tragic or traumatic events will incur serious ramifications. For example, it can inflict further injury to the affected individual and any related loved ones, it can generate a public distrust of media institutions, and it can stigmatize or stereotype vulnerable populations – a good example of the latter being the media’s disservice to those living in mental illnesses, such as Schizophrenia, when they run stories characterizing large swaths of criminals as “crazy” (Saleh), or when news stories were analyzed by the National Alliance of Mental Health and they found 231 instances of stigmatizing language in the reports describing the mentally-ill victims of police-gun-violence between 2015 and 2016 (Frankham). There are also ethical considerations in reporting on vulnerable populations, according to Dr. Lori Peek, which he enumerated as informed consent, confidentiality, and harm avoidance (Peek).

"And how can media outlets balance informing the public with respecting the dignity of those affected?"

Media outlets can strike the balance between “informing the public and respecting the dignity of the affected individuals” by following the ethical guidelines we’ve already discussed above. This obviously means avoiding sensationalism, respecting individual privacy, being thorough investigators, providing context to all their presented evidence, being transparent with their methodology, and seeking feedback from any affected people or groups that are relevant. 

"Lewinsky noted a link between public humiliation and online engagement for profit. Why are we drawn to clicking on content that shames others? Do you do it yourself, and do you find it ethical for companies to monetize others' pain? And how can media consumers avoid falling into the trap of consuming sensationalized content?"

My answer will be significantly more personal, bereft of my cited research in the former questions. Consider this my very personal conclusion to the whole theme of the interview. Now I don’t think this issue is as complicated as some think it to be. The reason people are drawn to clicking on shame content is because it makes people excited and curious. Shaming others in the fashion we have described is morally reprehensible. We know this because our moral instinct and civil temperament inform us as much. Yet, no matter how many times someone is shamed, people repeat the “click” like some chronic addiction. Why? Since it is reprehensible, it is odd and makes us curious. Since it is taboo, it’s novel and makes us excited. So when we people see it, no matter how many times they do, all moral considerations are quickly outshined by the impulsive excitement and curiosity normally found in children. Then, people “click.” Companies know this. Companies live on this. 

In a society where selfishness and greed are the operating principle, and there is no higher principle oriented towards a divine ethic or motive, you are left with the culture you see here: a corrosive society of chronically online, anonymous incels driving innocent children, who are vulnerable and unfamiliar with the greatest parts of living, to suicide before they can reach adulthood. There is no “ethic” in the “monetization” of such behavior (clicking and profiting from one’s intent to cause another misery) since the behavior is contrary to any secular “ethic,” much more so any mythic or religious “moral.” So no, it’s not ethical. In my mind, it would’ve been better had those companies never existed, those platforms never been made, and their CEOs never born, rather than a child or adolescent taking their life. 

The way we resist the urge of sensational bilge is by refusing to validate the urge. Delay gratification indefinitely with this. Virtue is found in the mean. And in this case, the mean or “average” is not engaging at all, since zero added to and then divided from zero is still zero. To engage would be absurdly, morally backward. Giving time from your life to a godless outlet that does not care about you, to read a pathetic slander piece about a person you will never meet or know, only to pass some vicious judgment in a comment, and listen to someone else eagerly “gossip” about it on a late-night show, as if Napolean just returned from Saint Helena, all the while, the excited firing of neurons you experienced to brutally besmirch someone you never met led them to be engulfed in such misery that they impose a rope about their neck, or perhaps they fall two hundred feet off a steel beam into the ocean – and each person who deliberately contributed to the shameful sensation played a role in the victim’s final end. Is that enough motivation to not “fall into the trap”? 

People are fragile things, so we must learn to be fragile and loving.  If you do not love your neighbor, which is the antidote to most of life’s problems (since many complicated things have a simple solution), one cannot possibly hope to overcome the spirit of culture shaming or anything else that is vile or morally constipated. Therefore, love people like yourself, and refuse to indulge the sensationalism of modern corporatism, which makes its profit by dehumanizing the dignified and molesting the innocent. If you don’t patronize an evil business, you don’t have to wrestle with how you contribute to their business. And if everyone learned to love one another, this and all evil like it terminate.

"And Jesus responded: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no greater commandment."

–Mark 12:31

"The whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’"

– Galatians 5:14

"Live peaceably with all"

–Romans 12:18

References

1. Arendt, Florian. “Media Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Preference-Based Reinforcement: Toward the Dynamic of Self-Reinforcing Effects by Integrating Audience Selectivity.” Journal of Communication, vol. 73, no. 5, June 2023, pp. 463–75,

https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqad019. Oxford Academic. Accessed 12 Nov. 2023.

2. Ballan, Danny. “The Power of Media: How It Shapes Public Opinion and Society.” English plus Podcast, English Plus Podcast, 7 Apr. 2023, englishpluspodcast.com/the-power-of-media-how-it-shapes-public-opinion-and-society/. Accessed 12 Nov. 2023.

3. Bauder, David. “Media Watchdog Says It Was Just ‘Raising Questions’ with Insinuations about Photographers and Hamas.” AP News, AP News, 9 Nov. 2023, apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-photographers-attack-200be1ba47361f1c1fc113cdaeb65d04. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023.

4. Bennett, Jessica. “The Shaming of Monica: Why We Owe Her an Apology.” Time, Time, 9 May 2014, time.com/92989/monica-lewinsky-slut-shaming-feminists-media-apology/. Accessed 12 Nov. 2023.

5. Blackford, Russell. “The Shame of Public Shaming.” The Conversation, 3 May 2016, theconversation.com/the-shame-of-public-shaming-57584. Accessed 12 Nov. 2023.

6. Brewer, David. “Respecting Privacy as a Journalist.” Media Helping Media, 14 July 2007, mediahelpingmedia.org/ethics/respecting-privacy-as-a-journalist/. Accessed 12 Nov. 2023.

7. Common Sense Media. “What Is Media Literacy, and Why Is It Important? | Common Sense Media.” Www.commonsensemedia.org, Common Sense Media, 4 June 2020, www.commonsensemedia.org/articles/what-is-media-literacy-and-why-is-it-important. Accessed 12 Nov. 2023.

8. CPJ. “Guide to Legal Rights in the U.S.” Committee to Protect Journalists, Committee to Protect Journalists, 10 Sept. 2020, cpj.org/2020/09/guide-to-legal-rights-in-the-u-s/. Accessed 12 Nov. 2023.

9. Dean, Michelle. “The Story of Amanda Todd.” The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 19 Oct. 2017, www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-story-of-amanda-todd. Accessed 12 Nov. 2023.

10. Delbert. “What Are the Challenges and Risks Involved in Investigating Sensitive or Controversial Topics? - CPI Journalism - All about Journalism.” Cpijournalism.org, Center for Public Integrity, 3 Jan. 2023, cpijournalism.org/investigative-journalism-challenges-risks/. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023.

11. “What Ethical Considerations Do Broadcast Journalists Need to Keep in Mind When Reporting on Sensitive or Controversial Issues? - CPI Journalism - All about Journalism.” Cpijournalism.org, Center for Public Integrity, 4 Jan. 2023, cpijournalism.org/ethical-considerations-broadcast/. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023.

12. Flanagan, Caitlin. “The Media Must Learn from the Covington Catholic Story.” The Atlantic, 23 Jan. 2019, www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/media-must-learn-covington-catholic-story/581035/. Accessed 12 Nov. 2023.

13. Foderaro, Lisa. “Private Moment Made Public, Then a Fatal Jump.” The New York Times, 29 July 2010, www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/nyregion/30suicide.html. Accessed 12 Nov. 2023.

14. Frankham, Emma. “Stigmatizing Media Portrayals: What Can We Do? | NAMI: National Alliance on Mental Illness.” Nami.org, National Alliance on Mental Health, 23 Oct. 2017, nami.org/Blogs/NAMI-Blog/October-2017/Stigmatizing-Media-Portrayals-What-Can-We-Do. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023.

15. The White House. “FACT SHEET: Presidential Memorandum Establishing the White House Task Force to Address Online Harassment and Abuse.”The White House, 16 June 2022, www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/06/16/fact-sheet-presidential-memorandum-establishing-the-white-house-task-force-to-address-online-harassment-and-abuse/. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023.

16. Hughes, Melanie, and Aaron Minc. “Why You Shouldn’t Publicly Shame on Social Media - Minc Law.” Www.minclaw.com, Minclaw, 14 July 2020, www.minclaw.com/why-should-not-publicly-shame-social-media/. Accessed 12 Nov. 2023.

17. Kleemans, Mariska. “Understanding News: The Impact of Media Literacy Education on Teenagers’ News Literacy.” Journalism Education, vol. 5, no. 1, 2016, pp. 74–88, journalism-education.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/kleemans-Understanding-news.pdf. Accessed 12 Nov. 2023.

18. Kozlowski, Pierce. “Social Media: Blessing or Curse?” Konrad News, Wix.com, 12 Oct. 2022, bruceaxel.wixsite.com/konrad-news/post/social-media-blessing-or-curse. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023.

19. Loofbourow, Lili. “Even Monica Lewinsky Is Too Optimistic about Online Shaming.” Slate, Slate, 20 Oct. 2021, slate.com/culture/2021/10/15-minutes-of-shame-monica-lewinsky-documentary.html. Accessed 12 Nov. 2023.

20. Mohammed, Farah. “The Danger of Public Shaming in the Internet Age | JSTOR Daily.” JSTOR Daily, JSTOR Daily, 24 Jan. 2018, daily.jstor.org/the-danger-of-public-shaming-in-the-internet-age/. Accessed 12 Nov. 2023.

21. Peek, Lori. The Ethics and Practice of Conducting Qualitative Research with Potentially Vulnerable Populations. Natural Hazards Center, 25 Feb. 2020, converge.colorado.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/peek_research_ethics-1599585988189.pdf. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023.

22. Pollak, Joel B. “Netanyahu Demands Answers from CNN, NYT, AP, Reuters, on Embedded Hamas Photographers.” Breitbart, Breitbart, 9 Nov. 2023, www.breitbart.com/the-media/2023/11/09/netanyahu-demands-answers-from-cnn-nyt-ap-reuters-on-embedded-hamas-photographers/. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023.

23. Ruane. “Important Information about Bullying in Connecticut School.” Ruane Attorneys at Law, LLC, Ruane Attorneys At Law, LLC, 2023, www.ruaneattorneys.com/ct-criminal-lawyer/juvenile-defense/school-issues/bullying/#:~:text=In%20the%20state%20of%20Connecticut. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023.

24. Saleh, Naveed. “How the Stigma of Mental Health Is Spread by Mass Media.” Verywell Mind, Verywell Mind, 26 Oct. 2017, www.verywellmind.com/mental-health-stigmas-in-mass-media-4153888. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023.

25. Saraiya, Tanya, and Teresa Lopez-Castro. “Ashamed and Afraid: A Scoping Review of the Role of Shame in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).” Journal of Clinical Medicine, vol. 5, no. 11, Nov. 2016, p. 94, https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm5110094. National Library of Medicine. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023.

26. Scheff, Sue. “Shame Nation: The Rise of Incivility in America.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 13 June 2017, www.huffpost.com/entry/shame-nation-the-rise-of-incivility-in-america_b_591357d3e4b0e070cad70b2f. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023.

27. “The Impact of Public Shaming in a Digital World.” Psychology Today, Psychology Today, 2018, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/shame-nation/201807/the-impact-public-shaming-in-digital-world. Accessed 12 Nov. 2023.

28. Shannon Raine Muir, et al. “Examining the Role of Moral, Emotional, Behavioural, and Personality Factors in Predicting Online Shaming.” PLOS ONE, vol. 18, no. 3, Public Library of Science, Mar. 2023, pp. e0279750–50, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279750. Plos One.

29. TED, Monica Lewinsky. “The Price of Shame | Monica Lewinsky.” YouTube, 21 Mar. 2015, www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_8y0WLm78U. Accessed 12 Nov. 2023.

30. Vinney, Cynthia. “What Is Media Literacy?” Verywell Mind, Verywell Mind, 12 Jan. 2022, www.verywellmind.com/what-is-media-literacy-5214468. Accessed 12 Nov. 2023.

31. Vogels, Emily A. “The State of Online Harassment.” Pew Research Center, 13 Jan. 2021, www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/01/13/the-state-of-online-harassment/. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023.

32. Watson, Kathryn. “Trump Banks on Fear and Anxiety to Motivate Voters.” Www.cbsnews.com, CBS News, 29 Sept. 2020, www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-use-of-fear-and-anxiety-to-motivate-his-voters/. Accessed 12 Nov. 2023.