Poynter has an interesting article today about how newspapers handle “unpublishing” requests.
Kathy English, the public editor of the Toronto Star, surveyed 110 news organizations to find out how they deal with such requests. A majority of news organizations, 78.2 percent, said they would remove content given a good enough reason.
Almost all the papers, though, said unpublishing was a last resort. Publishing corrections, addendums, follow-up stories or even redacting some content were go-to alternatives to unpublishing.
Unpublish requests are a natural evolution of online news, where they are actually possible. If we were still publishing all our news on dead trees, this would not be an issue.
I’m a hard-liner when it comes to these requests. Just because news websites have the ability to unpublish material, it doesn’t mean that we should.
I hold most firmly to this position in the case when a source, after the story has run, asks that his or her name be removed from the article or for the whole article to be deleted. I’m sorry, but adults who talk to reporters have chosen to do so. They should be held responsible for what they say when they know they are talking to the press.
I’m more lenient when it comes to situations where leaving information online could cause someone harm. In most of those cases, provided that the potential harm could be proven, I’d support redacting content. Removing, though... I can’t quite bring myself to that.
My rules relax most when it comes to comments. I had a call this week from a local lawyer who wanted a comment about him removed from our website because it called him slimy. He came in with a bad attitude, and I passed the buck up to the managing editor to make the call — knowing full well that the ME would OK the deletion.
The thing was this: If the caller had come in with a better attitude, I probably would have removed the comment right away, even while he was on the phone. Since he came in mad at the newspaper and whoever was on the other end of the phone, his satisfaction was delayed.
The ME has put it this way in the past, and I’m inclined to agree: It’s not as if most comments on the board contribute a heck of a lot to civilized discourse. Deleting one of them should not be a hair-pulling decision.
Handling “unpublishing” requests
Poynter has an interesting article today about how newspapers handle “unpublishing” requests.
Kathy English, the public editor of the Toronto Star, surveyed 110 news organizations to find out how they deal with such requests. A majority of news organizations, 78.2 percent, said they would remove content given a good enough reason.
Almost all the papers, though, said unpublishing was a last resort. Publishing corrections, addendums, follow-up stories or even redacting some content were go-to alternatives to unpublishing.
Unpublish requests are a natural evolution of online news, where they are actually possible. If we were still publishing all our news on dead trees, this would not be an issue.
I’m a hard-liner when it comes to these requests. Just because news websites have the ability to unpublish material, it doesn’t mean that we should.
I hold most firmly to this position in the case when a source, after the story has run, asks that his or her name be removed from the article or for the whole article to be deleted. I’m sorry, but adults who talk to reporters have chosen to do so. They should be held responsible for what they say when they know they are talking to the press.
I’m more lenient when it comes to situations where leaving information online could cause someone harm. In most of those cases, provided that the potential harm could be proven, I’d support redacting content. Removing, though... I can’t quite bring myself to that.
My rules relax most when it comes to comments. I had a call this week from a local lawyer who wanted a comment about him removed from our website because it called him slimy. He came in with a bad attitude, and I passed the buck up to the managing editor to make the call — knowing full well that the ME would OK the deletion.
The thing was this: If the caller had come in with a better attitude, I probably would have removed the comment right away, even while he was on the phone. Since he came in mad at the newspaper and whoever was on the other end of the phone, his satisfaction was delayed.
The ME has put it this way in the past, and I’m inclined to agree: It’s not as if most comments on the board contribute a heck of a lot to civilized discourse. Deleting one of them should not be a hair-pulling decision.