 |
| Ignatz Krauss |
How obligated are we to make sure that our actions or
words don't offend others, particularly those to whom we are closest? Even when
we give it our best shot to be thoughtful, how responsible are we if our
positive intentions yield an unexpected negative response?
Almost 19 years ago, I was part of a team of writers and
editors who launched a technology magazine. As editor, I was tasked with
writing a note to readers about what we were trying to accomplish.
In a series of articles in the first issue, we tried to
address how technology has changed our lives. To serve as a counter to all of
the change, I started my note to readers with a look at how my
great-grandfather, Ignatz Krauss, might have found his job as a motorman for
the New York City subway system, originally built in 1904, little changed in
1994, when it remained decidedly low tech.
One exception I noted was that back in Ignatz's day, he
and others running the trains may have used a "motorman's friend," a
rubber urinal that motormen strapped to their legs under their pants. I noted
that while the technology of e trains had changed little in decades that this
bit of low-tech equipment had likely been long replaced -- perhaps in part by
stronger regulations about how long a motorman's shift could last.
I never knew my great-grandparents nor my grandparents.
Ignatz's youngest daughter, my great aunt, was still alive then and I knew her well.
I was never in regular contact with her, but saw her at occasional family
outings. She served as the maid of honor at my sister's wedding. I had thought
that mentioning her father and featuring a photo of him in suit and bowler hat
would be a nice tribute to a family member I had never known.
The article appeared and my great aunt said nothing. She
did, however, tell my father that she was appalled and embarrassed that I would
choose to mention her father's use of a urinal in a national magazine. Here I
thought it would be a nice surprise for my great aunt and other family members
to see Ignatz cited as an example of someone whose use of technology
represented enduring values of ingenuity and hard work.
But upon reflection, I realize that the bit about the
urinal tied to his leg could have been a bit too personal of a detail for my
great aunt's sensibilities.
So what was the right thing to do? Should I have cleared
my reference with my great aunt ahead of time? Perhaps that would have been a
kind gesture.
But then where do we stop in double-checking our actions
or words before we use them? If we worry so much about offending or being
inappropriate, we run the risk of never saying, writing, or doing anything.
The right thing is to try our best to be as thoughtful as
we can about how we choose to do what we do and recognize that we cannot
anticipate every reaction to our actions. We should never allow fear of
potential responses to keep us from doing whatever it is we're trying to do in
the best way we can in the time we have allotted to do it.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of
The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and
The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When
Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public
policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy
School.
Do you have ethical questions
that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net.
(c) 2013 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by Tribune MediaServices, Inc.
4 comments:
Wonderful piece, Jeff. For those of us writing family remembrances from time to time, it offers wise counsel. Thanks.
Jeffrey,
A writer can not be expected to write so as not to offend the sensitivities of the most brittle members of his audience. So long as the writer strives to be accurate in his reporting, takes efforts not to cast his object in a false light and takes known sensitivities into consideration, he has met his ethical obligations even if eggshell readers might be slighted. As such, your initial writing about your relatives' adventures on the rails met your ethical guidelines. It may have been prudent, however, since you we're aware of the daughters existence to utilize the daughter for fact checking purposes and as such would have become aware of the sensitivities prepublication.
Your second publication of your story in a national publication (this one) does not fare analysis as well though. Here you were well aware of your relative's sensitivities and not only retold the story that previously appalled her AND related her third-hand concerns but also go on to question whether or not it would have been proper to include her in your preparation. At the point that you turn the point of your article from the historical facts of your relative's adventures to handling the sensitivities of your other relative's reaction, especially based on third hand reports, you had an ethical and journalistic duty to inform your great aunt and pet her side of the story. Now your actions just appear callous.
William Jacobson, esq
Anaheim, CA
William and Anonymous,
Good points but note the reference that she "was still alive" at the time of the initial article. That reference is meant to indicate that she was alive then but no longer is alive. She died quite a while ago, so while I agree with you that optimally I should have told her about this new column, I could not given that she has died.
J.
Ah. Fair enough, that changes the analysis. Thanks for commenting Jeffrey! :)
William Jacobson
Anaheim, CA
Post a Comment