 |
The
Drum
27 February 2009
"Web of intrigue"
A recent
request to remove a story published in a newspaper from that
title's online archive has caused a row about how long stories
should remain accessible online. Should
they remain forever as a piece of history, or should they be
removed after a certain period of time? The Drum speaks to newspaper
editors to get their viewpoint.
With the
very rapid growth of online media, all of a sudden the printed
word has found a natural bedfellow which has speeded up the
reporting process and
spread the finely crafted words of journalists all around the
world. Instantaneously.
As with any
new and rapid development, this has created several issues
around the way that online news is reported – the growth in
“citizen journailsm”, the integration of film, sound and text,
the 24-news culture, to name just a few.
These changes
have not always been for the better though and reporters have,
at times, resisted such change, seeing it more as an exercise
in cost cutting rather than integration and modernisation.
|
|
Still, the
reporting itself – no matter the media – should not be of concern,
as long as it continues to be guided by the principles of the
traditional printed word – fair and accurate.
One concern
is about the length of time that news stories are now available
within the public domain. That is to say, news stories are now
always available to be found through the routine use of any
decent search engine.
For many,
mostly those who have something to hide, the fact that ‘Googling'
someone may mean that information from their past can easily
be found years down the line, is unacceptable.
History
Most publications are receiving requests asking for stories
to be removed about individuals. However, many are refusing
to do so, citing it as ‘a piece of history' that should not
be tampered with.
“We have
rules on how we handle those records, if we didn't we could
potentially alter history,” says Steve Dyson, editor of the
Birmingham Mail. “But how far can we take that? What sort of
precedence are we setting if we take down a story of a trial
or tribunal? What
happens the next time someone else wants something taken off
and then the time after that?
|
|
What happens
if that person then does the same thing again or something more
serious? I feel very sternly on this, that with official meetings,
court cases, tribunals and events, we should not tamper with
our history.”
Dyson continues
to say that he does concede that if a case is appealed or a
story takes a twist, then he would ensure that news running
online would be updated to explain the developments of the situation.
David Dinsmore,
editor of The Scottish Sun, believes that online archived news
should be treated in the same manner as cuttings from a newspaper,
held in storage for future reference. “I don't see any reason
to remove historical articles online because it is a matter
of record. You can find the cuttings of stories by just going
to the library, they've always been there, it's just a lot easier
to find them online,” Dinsmore says.
He adds that
the only difference with online is that it is a more easily
accessible public platform, but doesn't see why that should
make any difference in how news online is policed.
“It would
be a huge clamp on the freedom of the press if you were to place
a statute of limitations on news. We're all about freedom of
information, so why would you put in legislation limitations?
That is real police state stuff.”
Next page
|
|
