Monday, October 22, 2007

Removing Content: When to Unring the Bell?

The reason this article is seen as controversial is because news organizations are facing growing questions about whether, how and when to unpublish articles. More specifically, are there times when the best solution is to wipe something off a site completely?

An increasing number of people are complaining to Times editors saying that “they are being embarrassed, are worried about losing or not getting jobs, or may be losing customers because of the sudden prominence of old news articles that contain errors or were never followed up.”

Google and other search engines are making these individuals worried since old news content can be found with a few clicks.

It is always important to decide on what news stories to publish, but it is also an important decision to think of the stories that should be unpublished. Times editors do not only think about the individuals who want the article removed. It is essential to take into consideration “the subject of the coverage, others who may have been involved in the incident or controversy, readers, etc.”

To decide on whether or not a story should be removed from a website, I think it depends on what the story is about and who is asking for the story to be removed. For example, no stories which are historically significant or play a key role in society should be erased. No matter who is asking for their removal. I also believe that stories involving know people should not be removed. One should be able to type into a search engine the names: O.J. Simpson, Barry Bonds, Scott Peterson or Andrea Yates and be given a list of news articles about these individuals and the crimes they committed. Anyone anywhere should have access to these articles.

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=101&aid=129083

2 comments:

Doble Frijol said...

I can partly agree with McKenna.

Historical, or event-changing people should be left on websites for extended periods of time.

However, I think that news is news, and if you happen to make it into a news story, there is a very good chance that it was your fault for some reason.

I'm not saying that's the case everytime, but I do think that people should know what they're doing could end up as a news story.

The rest of the world has the right to know, especially when it directly involves the public (i.e. relevance, proximity, etc.).

Besides all that, think of your 15 minutes of fame! ;)

JTejada said...

The news is news and if something became news, it became news for a reason. Journalists need to own up to what they write, and even if 10 or 20 years down the road, somebody finds out an error in the article they wrote, it is the journalist's job to fix it. It's about accountability, responsibility, and accuracy.

That also goes for the people involved in news stories. People have a right to know, and if a person's or an organization's actions affect the interested public in anyway so that it becomes news, it should be news.

Nothing should be unpublished. Ever. Unless it's completely wrong or fabricated.