Should a person be haunted by past misdeeds? Metroland editors weigh unpublishing requests
We are often asked to unpublish or otherwise make invisible on the internet stories people no longer want shared with the world. Consciously removing articles is a big decision, writes Metroland editor-in-chief Paul Berton.
In a world where privacy is ever harder to protect, news organizations are increasingly being asked to remove stories that may no longer be news.
Metroland newspapers and news sites are often urged by members of the public (or their lawyers) to unpublish or otherwise make invisible on the internet stories they no longer want shared with the world.
Some of these requests involve past encounters with police or the justice system, and some are simply innocent features the subjects now find embarrassing or outdated years later.
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
The debate over how to handle these requests is ongoing — and each one is different — but it’s fair to say that in a digital world, most editors are more apt to consider requests, part of a re-evaluation across the industry.
Editors are long over claims we are erasing history. Simply rendering an article unsearchable on Google does not mean it is removed from the record. In many cases, these stories appeared in print and are available at your local library on microfilm.
In other cases, the digital file exists in a searchable database, and for a fee, historians can find it, albeit often with some difficulty.
Such requests are not the only reason articles are no longer searchable on websites. Many are lost to the ether during digital replatforming or website renovations. Some simply get mistakenly tossed out.
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
But consciously removing articles is a big decision.
You might be interested in
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
We are not inclined to remove stories about serious crimes, especially if there was a conviction. If the case was stayed, or otherwise thrown out, or the alleged perpetrator was acquitted, a committee will review the circumstances, and make a ruling.
If we’ve missed a followup court story, we’ll update the story if required. Sometimes we’ll remove it.
Each decision is different, as is each news organization, and the rules are evolving. There are rarely any easy answers.
At Metroland, editors gather regularly as a group to discuss these requests. Should a person be haunted by past misdeeds or bad decisions? Should their ability to acquire a new job be affected by this easily accessible record? Do they deserve a fresh start?
Often, we ask subjects to provide documents to help us make a decision in instances where we might have missed court proceedings.
Indeed, many news agencies today won’t publish names of those involved in less serious crimes. We simply don’t have the staff to follow these people through the courts.
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
Ultimately, public safety outweighs personal privacy.
has been editor-in-chief of The Hamilton Spectator and thespec.com since 2010. He has been a journalist for three decades and was previously editor-in-chief of the London Free Press.
