Publishing and ‘unpublishing’ in the digital age: Public Editor

The Toronto Star has been more than a newspaper for some time, having evolved in the past 20 years from providing news on paper to become a multi-platform digital news and information organization.

The Star now publishes its content in the paper, on its website, thestar.com; on its new tablet app, Star Touch; and also on its mobile app. While not all content is always published on all these “platforms,” all content can potentially be published in any of these ways. That fact applies to articles written by staff and also to content submitted for publication by readers.

Given this reality of multi-platform publishing, I was quite surprised to receive three requests in recent weeks from readers seeking to have their published letters to the editor removed from the Star’s website. One of the letters was published in 2010, another in 2011 and the third, last month. All expressed views on matters of public concern.

Two of these readers contend that they did not know the letters they submitted for publication would not only be published in the Star’s print editions but also online. Now, they tell me, they do not want these letters — and their names — coming up in Google searches. One letter writer suggests that online publication of her letter violates her privacy rights.

While hardly a week goes by that someone does not ask the Star to make information about them that was published previously on our website disappear from the Internet, these recent requests to delete letters to the editor are a new twist.

The Star generally does not delete what it publishes online — what is known as “unpublishing.” Our policy is clear and firm: “The Star does not unpublish content from our websites or archives, except in some rare circumstances.” Those “rare circumstances” are generally legal reasons and always demand consultation with the Star’s editor, managing editor and newsroom lawyer.

Unpublishing for rare reasons is indeed rare: In nearly nine years in this role, I can count on one hand the number of times when we have removed published information.

Like most other news organizations, the Star’s unpublishing policy is rooted in the view that the website — our digital archive of what’s been published — is a matter of public record and that it is unethical to make content simply disappear because someone does not want to see an article in which they are named turn up in a Google search.

It is worth knowing also that in this time when news and information is shared widely on social media, commented on, and cached on the web, it is virtually impossible to make words or images disappear entirely from the digital realm.

Clearly the long lifespan and easy accessibility of digital news and information has created new issues for news organizations and sources. The Star has given this issue serious consideration. It does take steps to update online articles and correct any inaccuracies in a transparent way. If we report on people charged with crimes and those charges are later dropped or those named were acquitted, we will note the outcome of the charges in bold type at the top of the article, understanding that a report of a criminal charge is a grave concern to the person involved.

So what about these unusual requests to unpublish letters to the editor that were submitted – and signed — by readers eager to see their views expressed in the Star. Indeed, given that the Star publishes about 12 to 15 of more than 100 letters submitted each day, most readers see it as somewhat of a coup to have their letter selected for publication.

I have spoken about this with the Star’s letters editor and the editorial page editor who is responsible for the Letters page. We all agree we cannot see any valid grounds for unpublishing published letters.

While these people seeking to have their letters taken down may well have since altered their views as expressed in those letters, or, as one of them told us, faced some professional repercussions for having expressed political views, I don’t think the Star can simply make those letters disappear as if they were never published.

Nor can I accept the argument that those letters were submitted for publication in the newspaper and the Star did not make clear that they could be published online as well — or that this is some sort of privacy issue because explicit permission to publish online was not sought and given. Given that the Star has been publishing readers’ letters online for many years now and this news organization is publicly transparent that it publishes on many platforms, I cannot see the need to state this explicitly or obtain explicit approval.

Indeed, we operate in a multi-platform digital age in which publishing has long since moved beyond printing words on paper.