Friday, May 16, 2008

Megan Meier and MySpace

You would have to have been living under a rock over the past two days (or at least ignoring all the shouting on CNN -- when did that start? Didn't they used to be the calm, semi-objective news casters?) to have missed all the coverage of the indictment in the Megan Meier suicide case, but just in case you've managed to avoid it (perhaps by paying attention to news of a massive deadline earthquake in China, a massive deadline cyclone in Myanmar and a war happening in Iraq), here is a link to the latest story on the topic:

Mom Indicted in MySpace Hoax

Really, there are so many fascinating and troubling facets to this story that it is hard to know where to begin a rational discussion. Jacqueline Vickery of the University of Texas-Austin presented a paper at the International Online Journalism Symposium in April about how persons on message boards have responded to the story when it first hit last fall, and she related the various sides of the consequences of anonymity online (for everyone involved, really -- from the original case of masked identity to how audiences of the story, many of whom also responded anonymously, made sense of the story).

Here's a link to the page where you can download Vickery's paper as a PDF:

I'm personally interested in looking at how the media has covered the story with regard to gender and power and in perpetuating this concept of the "mean girl." I've studied this before with regard to the Glenbrook North hazing incident a few years ago, and just to be brief, I found the mass media (meaning print, TV, Internet -- the whole lot) liked to glom on to the cultural rise of the "mean girl." In a short period of time in 2001 and 2002, many articles and books were published discussing how girls were conniving, back-biting, and generally, mean (see the first post of this blog for the NY Times Magazine story by Margaret Talbot that kicked it off). This stereotype of tween and teen girls was generally accepted by people from all walks of life (often you heard after this, "Well, girls ARE mean! Remember when you were 13?" as if all girls have a mean gene that just kicks in and allows them to be passive-aggressive and bitchy at a certain age). I argue that it has also been used to explain and in many cases, dismiss certain behavior. What the Glenbrook North high school girls did in their hazing case, however, was not mean. It was incredibly violent. While the girls were maligned by the media and portrayed as snobby (see the photos of one of them carrying her Louis Vuittan purse to court), they were not so much taken to task for their specific, violent behavior, but they were lumped together in this cultural story about girls being mean. And the media held them up as a perfect example.

This is playing out again now in the case of the videotaped and YouTube-posted beating of a cheerleader by other girls (and two guys -- again see the story I posted on the first day of this blog). And I see shades of it in the Megan Meier case. This time the mean girl is Lori Drew (and by extension, her daughter and her daughter's girlfriend), the mother who sent anonymous messages as Josh, apparently hoping to commit some kind of weird revenge on Megan for a falling out she'd had with her daughter. Before the indictment, the second-day stories like this one were fairly common:

A Hoax Turned Fatal Draws Anger but No Charges


The quotes from the sources here say Drew's behavior was "rude" and "immature" and that she was "messing with" Megan. Later on, Drew reportedly said that she felt less guilty since the girl had tried to commit suicide previously. Certainly, now that the indictment has come through (and as Vickery's paper reported, intense outcry about the case has reverberated through the blogosphere and elsewhere), Drew has become the ultimate mean girl: Lady MacBeth. Before she can brought to trial, we've already categorized her (and her co-conspirators, which it has been suggested, are teen girls).

Conversely, Megan is painted as a weak, helpless victim (which may be true, though the media reports certainly aren't objective in describing her as such). She was "teased about her weight" and switched to a new school and lost the weight. She'd been on antidepressants and had attempted suicide before, according to most stories. She had ADD, according to others. She was sensitive and seemingly very gullible, sweet, and vulnerable. That these descriptions are included in the news stories -- especially in contrast with the descriptions of Lori Drew and what she did -- is significant. Simply describing the victim and the perpetrator in these very gendered, subjective ways -- choosing to tell their stories with these words or quoting only people who use these words -- frames the story in a way that takes away from the truly complicated nature of all of it. It makes it so simple for a reader to see the inherent drama in this narrative. It also reinforces the mean girl bully and the girl-as-helpless victim mentality in every way. And we see it played out both overtly and subtly in every news story we read or hear about this case.

I won't weigh on whether she should or shouldn't be charged. Obviously, this is an incredibly sad, tragic case, and the authorities-that-be did indict ultimately indict Drew so there must be strong legal reason to believe there's a case here. I just would like people to pay close attention to how the case is reinforcing gender stereotypes in a way that is in fact, harmful to girls and women, and that makes it impossible to get to the truth of the matter without falling back on the stereotypes.

And sadly -- as evidenced in Glenbrook North, the YouTube cheerleader beating, and now, Megan Meier -- I'm sure this cycle of framing stories will continue to the detriment of us all.







1 comment:

Jacqueline Vickery said...

Shayla, thank you for mentioning my paper - I appreciate it :)