“What Really Happened to Phoebe Prince?” by Emily Bazelon is an in-depth look at the bullying and suicide of Phoebe Prince and the prosecution and administrative fallout that ensued.
The first thing I noticed about this piece is that it’s, in way, piggy backing on the fact that this story has been widely covered and editorialized. Heck, when this series ran new Massachusetts state legislation in reaction to this story was already in motion, and the trials of the defendants in question hadn’t even run their course yet.
Bazelon, however, takes the stance of reporter that’s willing to turn over a stone yet unturned. The primary question raised in this article appeared to be: To what degree does Phoebe bear responsibility of her own fate? The other questions seemed to be: To what degree are the prosecutions of “bullies” reasonable? And to what degree did the administration properly handle the situation?
Nut Graph/thesis: “I've wrestled with how much of this information to publish. Phoebe's family has suffered terribly. But when the D.A. charged kids with causing Phoebe's death and threatened them with prison, she invited an inquiry into other potential causes. The whole story is a lot more complicated than anyone has publicly allowed for. The events that led to Phoebe's death show how hard it is for kids, parents, and schools to cope with bullying, especially when the victim is psychologically vulnerable. The charges against the students show how strong the impulse is to point fingers after a suicide, how hard it is to assess blame fairly, and how ill-suited police and prosecutors can be to punishing bullies." pg.2
Bazelon takes a comprehensive approach by relying heavily on sources and documents made public, and interviews with other students, law professionals and educational professionals. The lead-up to Phoebe's death and the fallout are as comprehensively covered as can be, but it seems like there's only so much depth you can achieve in a story when so many key players are unavailable for comment directly to the reporter. Missing key players included: The Prince family, Phoebe's counselor, D.A. Elizabeth Scheibel, the defendants, and Super Intendent Sayer.
Given that Bazelon didn't have access to any of the aforementioned sources, I think she managed to portray a well-rounded perspective. I really do respect the reporting of this piece, but I had a tough time reading it as a narrative. I suppose in nonfiction literature, I feel wary about being to pick out a nut graph on my first read or any read. It seemed to me like the three sections read at best like a well written newspaper story and at worst like academic journals. The first section about the lead up to Phoebe’s sucide read like a play-by-play, as perhaps told by a sociologist. The second section about the D.A.’s zealousness (which I actually thought could have been a longer piece unto itself) read like a law brief. And the third section was like an education-adminisitration-bullying analysis.
I suppose the reason that I was turned off a bit by this very dry approach to this heavy topic, is because I felt like there could have been more humanity. Maybe, it’s because when I was in high school, I had a pal who tried to commit suicide, or that I’ve since had other friends do the same, maybe I’m biased … but it’s seem as though, this piece had no emotional appeal to a subject that I feel has emotion inherit in it.
I, mean, this is a tragedy and I don't really know what the tone should have been, but to me I felt like I was reading briefings of the entirety of the scenerio, and I think I wanted to know more about what the answer to these situations are and what the reaction from the family was.
Maybe this, added depth, or humanity was impossible to delve into when so many people close to the story were already burned out on media exposure. Perhaps, the tendency for national media to overplay the sentimentality of these types of stories swung the pendulum too far back the other way in Bazelon’s corner?
Other notes on reading:
- Sometimes I think that when a story has as many links as this one does it’s over done. But given the highly publicized nature of this piece I think it’s very appropriate and lends itself to the piece. (Also, makes me think that this is an ideal, online read…)
- The visual elements of this article were puzzling. (I read the PDF version.) I didn’t understand the painted portraits of the various characters. It’s odd and a little confusing to have unlabeled portraits in the middle of the page, in a story that had a multitude of characters. Then it switches gears toward the end of the piece and the layout is full of photos, also confusing.
- After the upfront tone of the nut graph Bazelon goes on to explain her approach to dealing with the public discourse of such sensitive information. After that Bazelon goes on to keep the reader in the loop, parenthetically disclosing some of her editorial, choices. (Phoebe’s parents requested that no personal information not previously publicly released, be discussed; the names of students, not previously published, have been changed. etc.)
These are important ethical choices that must be disclosed to the reader. In a way it’s part of the story. Bazelon could have had a note from the editor, up front, but I think making these choices parenthetically part of the narrative lend weight to the heaviness of the subject matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment