Home » Unpublishing»

Is anonymous better? (Credit: Altered version of original work by Virgilio Aleman via Wikimedia Commons)

Guardian readers editor Chris Elliott discussed the UK newspaper’s unpublishing standards in a July 21 column.

As iMediaEthics has written often, many newspapers have guidelines in place that prohibit unpublishing stories in most cases. Elliott explained that the Guardian has a similar practice and laid out the standards that he created “for internal discussion” a few years ago.  Some cases where he finds it acceptable to consider unpublishing include: for legal reasons, to protect someone’s safety, and in special circumstances involving children.

But, Elliott offered an interesting possible alternative for other unpublishing requests related to “minor indiscretions or convictions” — making the person anonymous after the fact.

While he noted that in the past he didn’t think unpublishing would be OK in those cases, now, he thinks ” electronic eternity seems a bit more than the courts intended for some crimes, and too harsh in some other circumstances.”

You May Also Like...

LA Police Shootout, Suspect Wounding Broadcast Live, CBS KCBS-TV Apologizes

As an example, he pointed to an interview with someone about “his brush with gang life” and how that person felt, years later, the article “defined him in a way that was no longer consistent with his life and hampered him.” Elliott went on:

“The stories of the crimes should remain on the archive, the names of those involved available to a search by editorial staff for future reference, but there may be cases for anonymising, in some exceptional cases, after a period of time.”

Elliott noted that this suggestion of making some people anonymous “has not been agreed.”

What do you think of this unpublishing alternative?

Submit a tip / Report a problem

‘Anonymising’ an Alternative to Unpublishing? Guardian Readers Editor Addresses Deletion Requests

Share this article:

Comments Terms and Conditions

  • We reserve the right to edit/delete comments which harass, libel, use coarse language and profanity.
  • We moderate comments especially when there is conflict or negativity among commenters.
  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *