A post in the Columbia Journalism Review reminds us of the internet's power, in this case to keep old stories alive and just a click away from everyone, including prospective employers. According to the post, news outlets are receiving more requests to unpublish stories that sources consider damaging.
Some requests might be source or columnist remorse (about past comments or activities that are now coming up in background checks), and inaccurate or outdated information. Most seem to fall into the category of arrest reports where charges were subsequently dropped.
It is not news that sources are sometimes unhappy with parts or all of a story. But once a story was printed, it was printed. Things were resolved with corrections and clarifications -- if warranted -- a follow-up story, or letter to the editor.
The big difference today is a reporter or employer does not have to search microfilm or newspaper files to find the information. Search engines now do the work for anyone connected to the internet.
The takeaways:
--Is removal of damaging content always the best tactic? Certainly legal matters will dictate action to be taken. But in other cases, unpublishing may not be simple if other parties are involved? And people are probably aware of the story. It may be better to address the issue head on and get your story out there.
--A lesson for all of us is the importance of our internet reputation. Digital content has a good chance of being further distributed through links by other sources or shared via social media and commented on. It will continue to live online and in the outlet's digital library.
--There is a need for further discussion on best practices to address such requests, and fairness and ethical concerns. As Dan Watson writes in CJR, “Ultimately, the dilemma is to balance the concerns of sources with ... practical manpower concerns and the obligation a publication has to its audience.”
Digital content can easily be changed, but should it be and under what circumstances?
No comments:
Post a Comment