Should newspapers remove old stories from the web when requested?
An interesting email request arrived this week.
We've always had newspaper cuttings and archive files in libraries. But what should we do with when the accessibility of our stories online are claimed to cause a story for wrongdoers of the past?
Here's the request (with the ID and a couple of facts removed):
Dear Editor. I am writing to you concerning a story about me by your paper from *********. My name is **** ****** and over 4 years ago I was accused of swearing at a group of young people during the ******* ** * ******* I used to manage. The following story is still on your database and comes up whenever my name is googled. '******* ******** teacher struck off'. I simply ask how long you are going to keep this story on the internet as it still has a very negative impact on my life in the hope that you will decide to remove it from your files. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Yours sincerely, etc
My reply...
Dear Mr *************. Thank you for your recent email concerning a report about you published in the Birmingham Mail in *****, which is accessible via the internet. We have considered your request carefully, but it appears to us that our report was and remains true and accurate. You were struck off the teaching register by the General Teaching Council; and, as we correctly reported, you did not attend the hearing at which your case was decided upon. Had you done so, of course, you could have put forward your defence and that would have been reported by us. In the circumstances we do not believe that there are any grounds for us to take the unusual step of deleting the story from our website. Yours sincerely, etc
What do Editor's Chair watchers reckon on the rights and wrongs of this case?
Older/Newer
« More debate re. Fort Dunlop | Birmingham Mail Recession Buster »
32 Comments
Leave a comment
Profile
Steve Dyson - Blog from the Editor on recent issues and events.
Mr Dyson's reply = 2 raised fingers.
How charming...
Of course, why should the Mail remove this old story? The Mail is all about yesterday's news...
Thanks plank man... nice bit of bile there...! But there's a serious point re. email archives here and one that might interest opinions of those interested. If you don't want to take part, don't feel you have to...
I presume the person involved might have assumed this matter would be kept private? A polite request to remove an old article that is now, sometime later, having a detrimental effect on them. But, instead of being kept private, the contents of your inbox are now on a public blog open to discussion.
You now ask your readers 'Should newspapers remove old stories from the web when requested?'
Why are you asking us? You've already made up your mind.
I'm sure this persons actions in the past were regrettable.
Do you think they should still be punished four years later or given another chance?
Hmmm, interesting one this. I suppose it's a little like having a criminal record being made available on the web...
It depends how serious you think the offence is. Obviously if he had assaulted, murdered, raped, indecently assaulted etc any of the youngsters then I'd have said: "Tough beans buddy, the story stays..."
But swearing at them? Bearing in mind what teenagers can be like, I would have some sympathy for him! Personally, I think being struck off was punishment enough and having the story come up every time you look him up on the internet is harsh.
Of course, the side issue is how do you remove stuff from outside your control? For instance, you could take the story off the Mail website but the headline would still remain on Google and other sites which may have picked up your story. It also depends on the popularity of the search subject. I can't see there being many different articles on this teacher floating around in cyberspace (compared to say Barack Obama) so this issue is bound to come up unfortunately for the teacher, especially if it was originally read by loads of people in the first place - pushing it's popularity up the Google list.
A interesting one. I believe that internet records are the equivalent to cuttings... and we don't burn our old bound copies held in local libraries, do we? Also, although the teacher's misdemenor happeneed a fair while ago, the hearing was only a year or so back. Therefore, if the Teaching standards folk felt it right to strike him off then, surely it's too soon for him to trry to cover this up??
Negative impact on her life?? She shouldn't have done it then should she? - or refusing to appear in court. That's her fault and a constant reminder for her not to do it again.
Steve,
Following your reasoning shouldn't the archive editions of the Evening Mail not have the names of criminals blurred out?
Do you mean the archive editions printed each Saturday? If so, you'll see that many criminal cases DO have the names blurred out. This is due to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which limits the time that media can repeat 'spent' convictions of 'non-serious' crimes. If this teacher's case was to follow that reasoning it would not qualify as it's too recent. But I do not think that internet archives are the equivalnent of an historical newspaper reprinted in today's newspaper. Surely internet archives are the equivalent of library bound copies, as Hackett says?
At the end of the day, it's a futile endeavour trying to get something removed from the web, because once it's out there in the ether it'll be there forever. The Internet Archive will most likely have more than one copy of the original article, along with Google Cache and numerous other places... I somehow doubt the Internet Archive would humour a request from one individual asking for removal of a particular story from an archive of a web site he was never even involved with.
Regardless of how old news is, if it's newsworthy it should remain on the web. The question here is really 'is all news worthy of remaining publicly catalogued for more than a reasonable period of time'? Most news fades from the public consciousness after a few months, a few years at the most - what I'd suggest for old articles is placing a large, unavoidable banner at the top of all news articles, making it quite clear as of the age of the article. Something like this:
THIS ARTICLE IS FROM THE BIRMINGHAM MAIL ARCHIVES AND AS SUCH IS NO LONGER CURRENT NEWS - ORIGINAL DATE OF PUBLICATION: <date of publication>.
AS SUCH, THE FACTS AND STORIES STATED IN THIS ARTICLE MAY HAVE BEEN RENDERED OBSOLETE BY SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR JUDGMENTS AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED DEFINITIVE.
Or something like that... Needless to say, probably best to not have it in all caps, but rather in a larger text size and emboldened to make it quite clear to all readers.
Personally, I think this is the most effective method of keeping old news on the web - so people don't whip themselves up into a frenzy if they find some really old piece of news and misinterpret it as current events (which has happened to old BBC News web site articles several times!)
That's a very interesting idea and one I'll look into with my industry colleagues. Thank you.
There was some interesting discussion of this problem a few years ago when the New York Times started getting requests like the one you received. Here's the column their public editor wrote about it: http://tinyurl.com/da39c5
I would point him to an online resource about how to improve your google rating so it doesn't link to something you don't like. There are several about - and with fairly simple steps you could avoid top links going to old news reports. Attempting to remove old news is a battle you're never going to win as the chances are there will be a copy or record somewhere.
It seems sad that someone's life is totally blighted by a relatively minor non-criminal action. I obviously don't know the details (and am not wasting time googling to see if I could find them), but swearing at children might be bad but should not destroy a person's whole career.
Difficult one and something I think the PCC and others need to get their heads around. The argument I'd use is that we don't go and tear sections out of the old editions so why delete an online archive? And as a previous poster said, things can always be found online, long after they are 'gone'.
I'd also argue that one of the penalties of committing an offence or crime is that you live with the consequences - in a modern age this is one of them.
Interesting how McFelz thinks this person is a woman - especially when you wrote "Dear Mr..."
What's the procedure with court stories on the net, because I thought they had to be contemporaneous (among other things) to avoid a libel battle? If it isn't recent, and is causing someone problems with job applications or whatever, could they sue you? They might make a bit of a pathetic case, but people have got massive payouts for very little...
I do agree that if they did the crime they have to get used to the consequences in the information culture of the internet.
Steve,
Firstly please excuse the name I posted under - it doesn't reflect my feelings this time but for consistency's sake I will use the one I have always used on this blog.
Please answer Ray's point, made early in the comments, concerning whether or not the gentleman was informed his letter would be published like this.
I acknowledge that most letters sent to papers are for publication and that anyone who does not want their correspondence to appear in print should make that clear. However this is evidently a request for the Mail to take action rather than to publish his thoughts.
A very quick search of your site with the information that you have given here without the asterisks means it is possible to find the original story so you have in fact gone beyond refusing his request and have actually drawn attention back to the story. I can't imagine he would be pleased.
This action on your part is at best inconsiderate, thoughtless and sloppy as you have failed to protect his identity from the simplest of web searches despite making a clear effort with the asterisks. At worst, if you decided to publish knowing that information could be found, this was downright spiteful.
That said I agree with your decision not to remove the story. The incident may have happened in 2005 but it was 2007 before the teaching council banned him. That ban remains in force to this day. There is also an argument that newspapers and their websites exist, in part, as a source of public record. Technology has made it possible to view old stories without going to a public library. His request is as without merit as it would be if he were to request microfilms of the print edition be scrapped. Journalism is, after all, the first draft of history.
I'll reply asap, but am away from office at conference with no access to web other than this phone which is running out of juice!
For all your asterisks, Google finds the offending article in seconds, when searching your site using phrases from your post.
There are a few points to make:
1. A simple answer to TrulyAppalled is that no, the person concerned was not told of my intention to use excerpts from our correspondence in my blog. That’s why the identity has been removed. If visitors to my blog feel the need to Google away, that’s up to them...I realise it’s possible and, given that the item is up there and has not been removed, there's no crime in such searches.
2. A fuller answer to TrulyAppalled is that the full communication between the individual concerned is quite detailed, complex and, importantly, ongoing. While we have a position on not removing the report from internet archives we have also made suggestions on a possible way forward that might be helpful to the individual. It really is not appropriate to go into any more detail of the specific case. But do note that the blog was a small excerpt from the exchange, and the reason it was blogged was to provide an live example of a much wider subject… internet archives.
3. On that wider subject, there are many angles. But when it involves court cases, employment tribunals, etc, the internet archive is an account of a piece of history. The media industry needs to be really careful in deleting such matters, as in a way that would be altering history. What we can and should always do is make sure those stories are clearly dated. And, if for any reason the facts changes (appeals, etc), this should be updated and clearly linked or tagged to the original. For what it’s worth, I empathise with the individual concerned and, as said, am continuing private communications with advice on this matter. But the industry needs rules, or else archives would not be full, could be tampered with by many for changing reasons, and would lose integrity.
5. This case was open and close. It was a fair and accurate report of a decision with all the privilege that goes with that. The decision made by the GTC is still in force. It it was inaccurate, or if matters had changed, that would be a different matter.
6. Coincidentally, I was at a media law conference today in London yesterday, and one of the subjects discussed was the internet. Out of interest I therefore brought this matter up and asked some of the experts for their opinion. It was very much the same… stories which record events/issues accurately, especially courts/tribunals, etc, should not be deleted. The experts who publicly expressed this opinion were: Christina Michalos, barrister at 5RB (internet specialists); Caroline Kean, head of media litigation at Wiggin; Julian Pike, lawyer Farrer and Co; Tony Jaffa, lawyer at Foot Anstey. To quote one of them: “Keep it up [the article]. Make notes or links if the case is updated."
"Coincidentally, I was at a media law conference today in London yesterday..."
This is quite probable with my incredible machine.
Ha! Great spot! Fancy a job proof-reading!!
Ha! Great spot! Fancy a job proof-reading!!?
Thanks for your reply Steve. Just out of interest what was point number 4?
Forgive me but I must say I think you are a dreadful hypocrite to state that the correspondance is still ongoing and that it is not appropriate to comment further when you are the one who decided to open this matter up to public debate.
Well that's the point of a debate, TrulyA, not to necessarily agree, so you're entitled to your view. My point was to give an example of a growing problem, without identifying that example. Again, if you and others then want to Google to look, I can't stop you. But the issue is harder to debate without some facts. Good spot re. my numbering... blogs, eh, who invented them, with their 'one-pair-of-eyes' checking procedures... (by the way, watch your spelling - it's 'correspondence').
The whole thing is really down to whether or not you believe what has been written is fair, accurate and in the public interest. Why should a publication which has spent time and money in trying to ensure all of these things are reflected in a story remove the story just to appease people? Just because the internet is a more expansive beast that the old archives of a newspaper doesn't mean that it should be treated differently.
At the end of the day, yes there is such a thing as privacy and it should be remembered by journalists - and yet that is not always the case. But if a paper believes a story is worth running, then 10 years down the line it may also be worth referring to. The law needs updating to reflect these situations and clearly editors are being left to make these decisions themselves. But they should stand firm and not be swayed simply because they have already run a story and there is no current public interest, unless the legal system decides otherwise.
What chance does Mr *************, stand when even Mr Dyson's long suffering colleagues stand no chance of privacy themselves. See his latest blog about Steve Murphy's one to one. I always thought work appraisals were like confessionals...i.e confidential. But if this is the way it works over at the Mail, then I look forward to seeing Mr Dyson's on the web - particularly if there is a 360 degree element!
methinks hacked off is a tad boring!
Blimey Hacked Off! It was a tongue in cheek blog about a little typo! Mr Dyson didn't print out Steve Murphy's full appraisal!!!!
I'm all for people coming on and challenging the editor when they think he is wrong but, come on, it's ok to smile once in a while...especially in the current doom and gloom climate. I'm sure Mr Murphy knows this too...
Methinks Steve Dyson is a tad smug!
I agree.
First the Editor - a man of presumed integrity and governor of the paper - brings up the old subject in question to public debate, highlighting the case to all and sundry?
Then he repeatedly blogs and it soon becomes obvious who this person is and what they did?!
Obviously there is no privacy within the Birmingham Post and Mail!
Luckily there are so many alternatives out there that actually print 'local news!'
Do you know you've identified the man in question.
A chap called Mr ************ lives down our street.
Steve,
Understand your approach but there are a couple of points worth making:
~ Correcting or removing anything online is a illusory as anyone with a basic understanding of how search engines work can find cached (original) versions.
~ There's a bigger danger lurking here for all publishers when it comes to contempt. Remember the trial that was stopped not so long ago when a juror researched the background to the offence using google and submitted questions to the judge based on what he had uncovered..?
All newspapers report crime and court stories. In the print domain, you had a defence against contempt by saying the crime story that appeared six months previously where the suspect was named could not have ben prejudicial because a juror would be unlikely to remember it amid all the thousands of stories they'd have read in the intervening period.
Now it's easy to conduct a search and find out a person's antecdents if they've appeared in previous crime or court reports, backgrounders etc.
it is very informative.it is accessible via the internet. We have considered your request carefully, but it appears to us that our report was and remains true and accurate