Jason Barney, filling in for Ted Frank at Overlawyered while Ted is on a cross-country tour with Miley Cyrus, posts about the real life problem raised by Dan Solove in his terrific book, The Future of Reputation .
Seattle attorney Shakespear Feyissa was accused of attempted sexual assault while attending Seattle Pacific University in 1998. He was never charged with a crime and naturally, not convicted. But since the allegations were covered in the school paper’s online edition they are cached in Google and easily uncovered for anyone who searches his name.
According to Barney, the SPU people agreed to remove the archived article, but Chris Durr, the editor of The Falcon Newspaper refused, calling it censorship.
We explained to them, if they wanted to start down a path of removing historical archives and pulling it from the public sphere, what they’re doing is censorship. We basically said, sorry, we have principles in journalism that don’t allow us to put stuff in the memory hole and pretend it never happened.
Now it unclear to me whether this should be chalked up to a kid who has yet to grasp the impact of the written word, especially when that word will be available in perpetuity, on real people. Chance are, he’s full of the “principles of journalism,” swollen with importance over his firm stance in the face of administrative pressure. Or is this blind adherence to theoretical ethics, ignoring the fact that the paper failed to complete the circle by publishing the part where the allegations never resulted in a prosecution.
From the Seattle Times:
“Shakespear Feyissa may not like the story, but that doesn’t mean he should get to dictate what gets removed from a newspaper’s online archive,” Debra Smith, who wrote the original article, said in an e-mail. She now writes for The Herald in Everett and teaches a journalism class at SPU. “A newspaper serves as the paper of record for a community. I don’t think that function changes when the content moves online.”
But having published damning accusations, there’s a flip side to these principles. Maybe she missed that day in class. Removing allegations that have never been proven to be true isn’t censorship, but sound judgment in light of the circumstances. And as it now stands, the “paper of record” presents only part of a story, the part that harms someone against whom allegations have never been proven. Not much of record.
Of course, there are other alternatives as well, such as noting in an update to the archived article that the person was never charged or convicted, and therefore has never had the opportunity to refute the charges. Perhaps noting that allegations are not proof of any wrongdoing. The point is, they put out the bad stuff and this is the information that will taint him forever.
This particular issue is close to my heart, having seen many lives destroyed by the wide dissemination of initial allegations against people, with little or no mention when the cases are dropped or the accused is acquitted. People’s lives are ruined in the first few days after the allegations spread, and there’s no way to put the genie back in the bottle.
It would be censorship to forbid a newspaper, even a student newspaper, to print serious allegations. But the fact that they are perpetuated through Goggle whenever the accused’s name appears is like stabbing him in the heart again and again. Forever.
Here’s another “principle of journalism” for editor Durr to consider: The public is not served by perpetuating undeserved harm. Figure out a way that Feyissa won’t have to suffer the taint of student ethical bravado for the rest of his life.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Newsflash: The clerks of the court DO keep official governmental records of court cases (i.e., a historical record). Legislatures say that these records can be destroyed (expunged) in certain circumstances. This is something for the journalism people to consider.
Mmmmuhhh…must…put…toothpaste…back…in…tube!
I can understand a newspaper not wanting to delete old articles. That smacks of 1984-style historical revision. It sounds reasonable in this case, but that slope may be slippery.
On the other hand, I don’t think the newspaper folks realize that once they start keeping everything online where people can find it, the past is no longer dim and distant. It’s as accessible as everything else. In effect, they think they’re publishing a periodic newspaper, but they’re really also editing an encyclopedia.
They would serve their customers better by at least linking the stories together so people can learn what happened next.
Exactly. It doesn’t have to be “historical revisionism,” but it similarly doesn’t have to be an unresolved smear left hanging forever. There are a variety of options along the spectrum that can address the problem, but to hang the guy out to dry in the name of journalistic ethics is nonsense.
It’s that Fourth Estate thing (which we can all agree is a good thing) that makes journalists rightly reject government reliance for a record, but the flip side is that the journalists must make sure that their historical record is accurate, including removing their own stain when improvidently imposed.
I wonder how Chris Durr would feel if he was mercilessly trashed on the internet, for his future employers to see. I bet he might see things a bit differently.
If there is nothing defamatory in the article, there’s obviously no legal obligation for the newspaper to remove an archived article. From an ethical perspective too, it is very problematic to allow newspaper editors to delete archived articles – and revise history – for the sole purpose of doing a favor to someone who feels the article paints him in a negative light. Having said that, I think that there is an obligation – a moral, perhaps even a legal one – to give the full and complete picture, i.e. to publish a correction or update informing readers and researchers that the individual was never charged or convicted. As you correctly pointed out, this solution strikes the right balance between remaining true to historical facts and refraining from unfarily tarnishing someone’s reputation with misleading facts. It’s not clear from you post whether he asked for the article to be updated or corrected to reflect that these were unproven allegations never brought to trial, and what was the paper’s response.
From the original article, the administration for SPU agreed to have the archived article removed, but then the student editor of the paper, who was the only one with access to remove the article, refused to do so. So, the situation got stuck at that point, with the dispute between administration and students. There’s no suggestion that any compromise was attempted as everyone backed into their own corner.
Ever notice how often Bill Joel’s Angry Young Man comes to mind? It’s so easy to be absolute when you’re young and inexperienced, and the problem belongs to the other guy.