Some people would rather it go away.
Kathy English, public editor of The Toronto Star, surveyed 100 North American news editors last year to ask them about this issue. Her survey was sponsored by Associated Press Managing Editors.
Here’s what editors told her:
• They said “news organizations should start from the principle that published content is part of the historical record and should not be ‘unpublished’ from the online archive.”
• Some exceptions apply. Editors said they would unpublish online comments that don’t follow their commenting policies. They would take down content for legal reasons, such as when it violates a publication ban. And they should seriously consider unpublishing in the rare instances when a person’s life might be endangered.
• Ongoing accuracy is the responsibility of the news organization. “If we err, or if new relevant facts emerge, we should correct and update online articles.”
...
A statement in Kathy English’s survey report – one she suggests editors use with news sources who ask us to “unpublish” a story – sums it up quite well.
“As with our newsprint version, our online published content is a matter of public record and is part of our contract with our readers. To simply remove published content from the archive diminishes transparency and trust with our readers and in effect, erases history. This is not a practice engaged in by credible news organizations or in line with ethical journalism.”
Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/07/11/1259740/were-unlikely-to-punch-delete.html#ixzz0tQBeYLsa
.
1 comment:
The challenge is still "what is a violation of policy"?
I've had comments deleted and seen others deleted that don't violate the policy as published.
I think the line gets moved frequently to avoid possible controversy or arguments, which, frankly is absolutely childish on the part of the media.
It's the equivilant to Rush or O'Reilly muting someone that has them by the gonads.
Post a Comment