Extra Credit Unpublishing Paper

Joshua Cappannelli

Dan Caterinicchia

“Unpublishing” Online Content

Unpublishing: a word that may change journalism

Just because it is easy to remove digital content, does it mean we should?

At a time when the digital journalism landscape has changed everything we do- wider reach, faster speeds, and easier access- news organizations are finding they having even more problems with the content they publish online.

More and more news organizations around the world are receiving requests from people to ‘unpublish’ online content. According to Kathy English, public editor for the Toronto Star, to unpublish online content means, “To take down public content from an online news source.”

Now before deciding if it is ethical and practical to unpublish online content, news organizations have to understand why people want to take down content from online news sources. English says there are many reasons to why people want online content taking down, such as information that is inaccurate, unfair or outdated and privacy issues, but the biggest one is “source remorse.”

Source remorse is when a person gives a journalist information for any such reason and then later on request to have that information taken down, says English. “It’s not you, it’s me, like getting dumped on a bad day,” says Howard Finberg, host of the unpublishing webinar.

“Anyone who publishes has to think about unpublishing,” says English. For news organizations, it’s not always cut and dry. English says organizations have to weigh every publication between the possible harm it brings to the person who is requesting it to be taken down and the obligation that the news organization has to give its readers the truth.

English says it’s about fairness, “We have a responsibility to assure the ongoing accuracy of the information we publish.” And not only do we have to explain why we don’t unpublish something, says English, but “you have to unpublish for the right reasons, rare circumstances involving egregious error or violation of journalism ethics where it would be deemed necessary to remove content.”

And although the Toronto Star has a policy on unpublishing online content, but hasn’t published it to the public, English says all news organizations should have a policy. “Unpublishing online content should be carefully considered, in fairness to all,” says English, but stresses that source remorse is not a valid reason.

In the end English says that not one person should act as a censor and decide when to remove public content, but a group of minds, “unpublish by consensus.” And when you publish realize the consequences, “consider the implications of publishing content before publishing it, because news is easily accessible and lives forever,” says English.


Dan I didn’t get any interviews, but McClusky and Kraft both emailed back saying that would love to sit down with me and discuss next week. I would love to get all their input and use it for my final project, because I got a lot more ideas to write with or without the sources.