I was interested to read this article in Online Journalism Review by Elizabeth Zwerling, an associate professor of journalism at the University of La Verne in Los Angeles County:
By the time I got the e-mail from the spokeswomen for a major credit card company asking me to delete her quotes from an article we'd run almost a year before, I was skeptical. She had already contacted the reporter with various versions of her concern: she'd been speaking off the record, the reporter must have confused her with another source, the quotes were wrong. A man "representing" her had called the managing editor urging him to omit the quotes from the archive. "I think he was a lawyer," the managing editor told me at the time. (He wasn't.)
I'm faculty adviser for the Campus Times, a 2,000-circulation weekly newspaper of the University of La Verne in Los Angeles County. My staff of undergraduates occasionally gets things wrong and corrects them. But this was a solid story by a conscientious reporter, puzzled by the content, urgency and timing of the source request.
Most likely the credit card spokeswoman – a woman a Google search revealed is widely quoted by Reuters and CNN, among others – had searched herself online and found our story about college students and credit card debt, in which she spoke openly, if off-message, about the age group's unchecked spending habits.
That's quite an easy one to settle one's conscience. But how about this one:
Editors at the Pasadena (Calif.) Weekly felt they found a fair solution when in 2006, they decided to remove the name of an ex-con from an archived story, six months after it came out in print.
Joe Piasecki, the paper's deputy editor who also reported the story, had covered a protest at San Quentin Prison a week before the execution of Crips co-founder Stanley Tookie Williams, where he interviewed a man who said he'd been in prison with Williams. Piasecki researched the man's background through the Oakland Tribune's (offline) coverage of the man's 1998 trial and found the man had been charged with raping and sodomizing his former girlfriend, and convicted of assault. Piasecki included that information in the story along with the man's claim that he was innocent. "I'd called the Tribune library (to make sure) he was who he said he was," Piasecki said.
The story ran Dec. 8, 2005, in the Weekly, its sister paper the Ventura County Reporter, and on the Reporter's Web site. At the time the story went up, the Pasadena Weekly didn't have a functioning Web archive, so the source's call went to the Ventura, Calif., newsroom first. Then Piasecki and Pasadena Weekly Editor Kevin Uhrich were consulted.
"Our first reaction was 'no don't change it'," Piasecki said. "I tend to say that unless (the reporter) screwed up, don't change it. What's true is true."
Piasecki said his publication made an exception here because the man wasn't familiar with the Internet, and because his quotes toward the end of a story about someone else, were not critical to its "material essence." The man had served two years at San Quentin and remembered seeing Williams there; his quotes added color to the story, Piasecki said. The quotes are still in the Ventura newspaper's online archive, only the man's name was removed.
"The guy said every time he applied for a job they Googled his name and this was the only hit," Piasecki said. "We took his name out so he could move on with his life." (my emphasis)
I've had this issue myself only once and it wasn't nearly as dramatic. A news website I ran carried a run-of-the-mill Employment Tribunal story which involved a (from memory) small nursing home in the Midlands.
Perhaps a year later they called me and begged me to take the story down. They were trying to recruit new staff but when potential applicants did a search for the home on Google, our bottom-of-page-27 article on a minor point of employment law came up first in Google's search results.
Sometimes the Internet, like life, just isn't fair. I shan't tell you what I decided; I hope it's obvious.
