I’ve written previously about the rising numbers of people who are coming back to college media outlets asking for removal of information contained in online archives (see the 2006 edition of Keeping Free Presses Free). I also wrote about a possible solution for those folks (see online identity management). Now, Online Journalism Review has posted an article by a college media adviser about this issue: Rewriting history: Should editors alter or delete online content? #

My answer: It depends, as I explain below. #

Below the fold, I’m including part of the Keeping Free Presses Free article entitled “Legal and Ethical Issues in Online Journalism,” for further information. I don’t think the publication is online. #

REWRITING HISTORY #

A prime ethical consideration raised by the Internet is the question of clarity in light of history. #

I will explain by means of an example. Jon Doe was arrested and charged with drunken and disorderly conduct while at a fraternity party in his junior year at good ole State U. The Daily U. reported the arrest in its crime blotter column, which was then uploaded to the DailyU.com web site. The charges against Doe were dropped, but the disposition of the case was never reported in the newspaper, or on the news site. Five years later, John Doe is a promising young lawyer who’d like to remove the “Google prints” of his arrest. He sends a letter to the editor and adviser of the Daily U. asking that the newspaper remove the story from its online archives. #

A further example: Jane Pious has just graduated from Central U. and has accepted a position with a religious organization which will allow her to travel to a country in the Middle East to do mission work. While at Central U., Jane was interviewed for a story about Campus Ambassadors for Jesus, and her membership in the organization was mentioned in the story. Now, three years later, Pious writes to the newspaper to ask that her real name be removed from the online archive because she fears it may jeopardize her safety if the wrong people in this Middle Eastern country were to discover her religious background while searching the Internet. #

Neither of these situations is entirely hypothetical. #

I will leave it to you to chew on the ethical issues raised by these two situations, but I do want to point out the options that news web sites might consider in clarifying the historical record of any article that contains a mistake, incomplete information, or other errata. #

1. No changes: Some would argue that web sites should leave the material in its original state, making no changes to a “published” page, even if the information later turns out to be incomplete or false. #

2. Changes made with no notification: This approach means that the incorrect or incomplete material that appeared on the web site is updated or corrected at a later time, but no notification of the change is made on the web page. Here, a later visitor to the site would have no inkling that the material had been altered unless they had visited prior to the alteration, or the previous version of the page survived in a “cached” search engine version. #

3. Changes made with notification at the top/bottom of the page: This approach means that any changes made (more than a minor spelling or grammatical error) would be noted at the top or bottom of the article with a “correction notice” explaining why the material was being updated. #

4. Changes made with notification within the text: Here, any changes that are made to the text are noted within the text itself, and possibly with a “Corrected” or “Amended” heading at the top of the page. #

Option 1 is difficult to defend, especially given the ease with which material on the web can be updated. To use a noteworthy example, should the New York Times amend its pre-war reporting about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction with information clarifying that such weapons were never found? #

Option 2 shows that news organizations recognize their responsibility to report the truth, even if their earlier reporting is deficient or incomplete. But it also poses problems for credibility. In the past few years, several news organizations have been caught “red-handed” changing stories without any notice when the story creates controversy. These episodes usually involve Internet bloggers or media watchdog types making “screen caps” of a browser window with story as it originally appeared. #

Options 3 and 4 are both preferred, and perhaps a mixture of the two – providing an “editor’s note” at the top of the story explaining what corrections were made and then documenting the corrections within the text with strikethroughs or different colored text. #

Whichever option you choose, choose one, write it down and stick with it. And be transparent about it. I am fond of the New York Times’ online corrections page (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/pageoneplus/corrections.html), which links to every article corrected and provides information to contact the Times about a correction. The corrected articles include correction notes and “flags” at the top of the page. The Times’ corrections page is prominent in the right hand navigation of their web site. #

THE LESSON: BE PREPARED #

Even five years ago, we couldn’t predict all the legal and ethical questions that would arise from the Internet. But today, there are at least a few indicators of ways we can adapt to the new media environment. #

… #

How do you handle your online archives? Develop a guide that attempts to clearly spell out what, when, where, and how you will correct or modify those archival files. #

Such forethought will save many headaches in the future if such legal or ethical questions arise in your college media outlet. #

Print Friendly