Tom Shwartz: I'll try to respond here with my thoughts on this issue, but if you'd like additional information from me, feel free to contact me.
1. Before the webimar, I had heard about most of the webinar's discussion. Generally, I think technology developed for the presentation of material in journalism media should be exploited to advance the public interest.
2. Here is a policy statement I had developed for the Lantern a while ago. It's just a proposal; it has not be approved. At the moment (and perhaps indefinitely), I'm the only one who supports this proposed policy.Journalists should report the news fully, fairly, accurately, quickly and ethically. The Lantern should continuously strive to make its incomplete journalism complete, its inaccurate journalism accurate and its unfair journalism fair, even after material is published. The Lantern should follow the long-standing traditions of the finest news media in prominently and promptly admitting to, apologizing for and correcting omissions, inaccuracies, poor judgment and other errors. Recognizing the impact its content can have on individuals, groups and institutions, the Lantern should use to the fullest the capabilities of its electronic archives by deleting, updating or otherwise improving a part or all of material that does not serve the public interest in its present form. It is important not to alter accurate history in the archives, but it is also important that the Lantern and its archives serve the public interest in maintaining important, accurate, legal and ethical information, not information for its own sake.
3. I think this is a judgment call for a journalist in any situation. For media-savvy sources, e.g., politicians and government and business leaders, no such warning is necessary. But I have always believed that journalists should be sensitive to media-unsavvy sources, e.g., children, people of limited intellectual capacity, uneducated or illiterate people, about the consequences of whether or how they cooperate with media interviews. I've always felt that -- as a matter of ethics -- journalists should be thorough in explaining why they want to interview a source before the interview. If judged useful to the source, the journalist should give a "Miranda warning."
I am also shceduling appoitments with Dr. McCluskey, Dr. Kraft. Dr Schwartz said he would also love to sit down or talk on the phone.
I will go over the same questions with the other doctorates, infact I will use Dr. Schwartz's thoughts and see if that elicites a different response.
I also am in the works of geting in touch with an online editor from the Plain Dealer, Gene Dubai.
I will ask her specific questions about online publication and their policy on unpublishing. If she has any examples of unpublishing in the job over the past couple years.
Here is a rough draft I wrote up for an extra credit assingment that I will expand on with the information I receive. I am doing a hard journalism piece, and will most likely do a sidebar.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment