Archives and Ethical Issues

I wrote the police blotter for the Daily Campus for an entire year, and this, itself, brought up a few ethical issues with archives.

(Disclaimer: The last blotter of the year was done Monday, and I will not be writing the blotter next year. Also, I cannot tell anyone who the new blotter reporter is because we do not want anyone to harass him/her.)

My boyfriend, who knew that I wrote the blotter, brought up an interesting point last week. One of his friends complained about the Daily Campus Web site at lunch because she was in the police blotter a few months ago, and now, whenever she searches her name on Google or any other search engine, her arrest is the first item that shows up. The Daily Campus archives are online for years afterward, so that means that her arrest will also be posted for years. All arrests are online for everyone to see for years, even if charges were dropped.

This brings up many questions. Is this ethical? Should we remove past police blotters from our Web site? If a mistake happens online, does it make libel worse because it will be up for anyone to see for any amount of time? One the one hand, all arrests are public record - that's why local newspapers report them in a police blotter. Anyone can find these records if they ask for them at a police station, even years later after charges had been dropped. This doesn't make it different from a Web site. Also, if someone had something embarrassing published about them, they're just stuck with it online. On the other hand, if something is false, it may be libel, and if the web master and the libeled person are unaware of this, it can be up for a long time.

Slate documents this effect well in its article, "Don't blame the New York Times for your bad reputation." While I understand that libel is unethical and a strong case for a lawsuit, if something is true, it is not libel. If a person was arrested, it is on public record, and it's not the newspaper that ruined her reputation - it was the arrest. If something is simply embarrassing information, it has already been reported, so the damage has already been done, whether it was online or not. Anyone can also look up newspaper clippings at their local library. When they look up a newspaper clipping, they may not even look at the next day's, when there was a retraction or an apology.

I would say that the online medium of journalism helps protect from reporters from libel. They can issue a retraction and apology and just go back and change the story. Those in fear of ruining their reputations from online news should consider this and take responsibility for their actions.