Boston Globe Will Consider People's Requests To Have Articles About Them Anonymized (techcrunch.com) 35
The Boston Globe is starting a new program by which people who feel an article at the newspaper is harmful to their reputation can ask that it be updated or anonymized. From a report: It's reminiscent of the E.U.'s "right to be forgotten," though potentially less controversial, since it concerns only one editorial outlet and not a content-agnostic search engine. The "Fresh Start" initiative isn't for removing bad restaurant reviews or coverage of serious crimes, but rather for more commonplace crime desk reporting: a hundred words saying so-and-so was arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, perhaps with a mugshot.
Such stories do serve a purpose, of course, in informing readers of crime in their area. But as the Globe's editor, Brian McGrory points out: "It was never our intent to have a short and relatively inconsequential Globe story affect the futures of the ordinary people who might be the subjects. Our sense, given the criminal justice system, is that this has had a disproportionate impact on people of color. The idea behind the program is to start addressing it."
Such stories do serve a purpose, of course, in informing readers of crime in their area. But as the Globe's editor, Brian McGrory points out: "It was never our intent to have a short and relatively inconsequential Globe story affect the futures of the ordinary people who might be the subjects. Our sense, given the criminal justice system, is that this has had a disproportionate impact on people of color. The idea behind the program is to start addressing it."
"content-agnostic search engine..." (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
this has had a disproportionate impact on people of color
Only because "people of color" commit a hugely disproportionate amount of crime. But we're not allowed to say that because facts are now racist. So, instead, we'll just cover up the fact that a small percentage of the population commits most of the crime.
Re: (Score:2)
"Only because "people of color" commit a hugely disproportionate amount of crime."
Unless they're school shootings.
Or white collar crime.
Or attacking the capital.
Or voter suppression.
Or racial injustices.
Or...
Re: (Score:2)
You realise all the records are held in the court system, and you can go back decades for those? And if you're trying to get hard evidence of something without referencing the hard underlying data (Which it seems that you are from your assertion) then all you're doing is lapsing your own ideas for those proposed in a partisan information source.
The important metrics, generally, are recorded in court records and so on. That's where the real story is, and most of that doesn't make it into a newspaper. At
Re: (Score:2)
How about if you were falsely accused and found innocent? Or what if you were simply a witness to some horrible crime and don't want your name associated with it?
There are enough "no smoke without fire" types out there that guilt by association is a thing.
Re: The road to hell is paved with good intentions (Score:2)
Why wouldn't the newspaper publish a correction that would appear alongside the initial report in a web search?
We are only talking petty crime, police blotter-type reporting, why include names in the first place? I guarantee you that including someone's name in such an article is virtually guaranteed to harm their reputation.
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't the newspaper publish a correction that would appear alongside the initial report in a web search?
Why would they publish a correction? Because it's nice? Because it's right? Those are not reasons for newspapers to do things.
Journalists are good people, but newspapers and newsrooms are in the business of selling clicks now.
Re: The road to hell is paved with good intentions (Score:2)
For instance, say a politician were accused of a crime, but never convicted - would the Boston Globe rewrite the stories removing the politicians name? Even if the politician rightly claims the report damages their reputation?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that's why they are considering each case in its merits. In the EU a famous person would probably not be able to get that sort of thing removed, given that it was be common knowledge anyway and especially if they are seeking election.
Equalize it. (Score:2)
If your problem is racist policing, leading to racist reporting, de-rasist it.
I.E. Only name and photo a black criminal if they also name and photo a white criminal of equivalent crime.
Re: (Score:3)
What if there isn't a white criminal who did the same or equivalent crime that week?
Re:Equalize it. (Score:4, Interesting)
What about when they're not in equal rates (i.e. more crime that would make headlines is committed by people with one skin colour over another)?
Have a very careful look at the crime statistics, and how they relate to demographics for mandatory report crimes (the kind that make the newspaper).
What you'll find is that the police are not racist, but that media skews to an area where they'll get the most emotional response, regardless of whether its an accurate portrayal.
Now, that being said, I'm all for anonymising stories about crime. No race, sex or other identifying information. Until a court has passed judgement and any appeals are finished. This would inform that crime is happening in a general area (good) without people generally getting hung up on specifics.
Unless, of course they're after public information on a particular description (but that shouldn't be tied to a person until court and due process etc.).
Hopefully this'll help curtail the current trial by media that we get, and start going back towards a due process oriented system, and away from knee jerk.
Re: Equalize it. (Score:2)
Leave the names out - problem solved.
Memory-Holed (Score:3)
As a former reader of the Boston Globe, a newspaper that was still lauding Hugo Chavez well into him being an openly evil dictator, I am not surprised; wonder if that's been memory-holed.
Not a Fan (Score:3)
Re: Not a Fan (Score:2)
You have an issue with newspapers that are comfortable rewriting history to avoid embarrassing reports about people's behavior?
Can't wait until they offer this revisionist rewriting history service to politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
This just in! (Score:4, Interesting)
Dateline January 6th, 2021! This just in: Anonymous primates stormed a building in a city and nearly destroyed the democracy of an unnamed country, having been incited to riot by someone else. Police were present. Flags were seen. More on this shocking story as it develops! [this story was written in compliance with the Do Not Blame Me policies of the European Union. All rights reserved.]
Re: (Score:2)
Dateline January 6th, 2021! This just in: Anonymous primates stormed a building in a city and nearly destroyed the democracy of an unnamed country, having been incited to riot by someone else. Police were present. Flags were seen. More on this shocking story as it develops! [this story was written in compliance with the Do Not Blame Me policies of the European Union. All rights reserved.]
Would that I had mod points...
Re: (Score:1)
It's not loading for me. (Score:2)
I just see "An error occurred with this part of the page, sorry for the inconvenience."
Just to be crystal-clear (Score:1)
The newspaper is offering to re-write history, if their completely accurate, unquestioned reporting hurts your reputation?
How Orwellian.
I'm sure Nicholas Sandman would like to avail himself of this service.
Hey, Boston Globe - maybe the better answer is to not include peoples names in the casual reports of minor crimes, you know, kinda like how you treat juvenile offenders?
I 'consider' lots of things (Score:2)
But rarely to never do I do them.
So I'll wait for a bit before I applaud.
Re: (Score:2)
"So I'll wait for a bit before I applaud."
OTOH, What? The Boston Globe still exists?
Will they charge an arm and a leg for 'considering' this?
Silence Dogood (Score:2)
Any remember that anonymous dude "Silence Dogood" in Boston? .. I remember reading his Brit-hating crap and wondering who the heck he was and then come to find out he founded a whole country.
Translation... (Score:2)
How is mommy and daddy's little angel going to get a job if a future employer can see they were arrested for drunk driving, destruction of public property, or heaven forbid having multiple women accuse them of sexual misconduct?
I mean come on, we need to fill that Supreme Court seat right now before someone else has a chance!
The right thing for the wrong reason (Score:1)
I stopped my subscription to a publication ... (Score:3)
In their story, they had no real context. It looked like she needed the money to get through school; nothing more salacious.
Of course, there are the Stanford rapist Brock Turner types who need to be hounded to their graves with what they did, but in cases like the above nurse, there was no public interest. In that case, I wrote the publication and told them to stop sending their publication to me and that I would never renew or buy at the newsstand. Normally, I am a three-strikes kind of person but not in that case. That sort of crap ruins lives, families, careers, and can end with the person self-destructing.
Mistakes can and will be made in the rush to push out tomorrows birdcage liner, so it is nice to see someone putting something in place instead of a 3rd-page retraction.
I just hope that this process isn't used by scum like the Stanford rapist Brock Turner to hide their heinous crimes and entitled powerplays to hide their vile actions.
This will be popular (Score:2)
Many members of the clergy are looking forward to this.
The Internet is forever. (Score:2)
So unless this happens BEFORE it is published, there's no point.