RSS FEED
- Links: More Important Than We May Think
- Changing What Was Said
- Radio Rounds: A Job Loss and Education
- A Big Net Deal: Getting Staff's Attention
- Site Hot Links? Fear and Greed
- Balloon Boy: Not Your Average Business Story
- Hot Items: Gold, Gifts and Gritty Prison Fights
- Hot Links for Monday
- Swine Flu By Any Other Name ... Like H1N1
MOST SHARED
- Realty Check: USDA Home Loans
- Analyze This?
- The 'Real' Jobless Rate: 17.5% Of Workers Are Unemployed
- The Week Ahead
- Nielsen Ratings Coming to Video Games
- Bove: Expect Goldman To Increase Dividend Meaningfully
- 100% Mortgage Financing From USDA
- First Senate Vote Looms on Health Legislation
- Attention Shifts to China for Private Equity Industry
- Time to Buy Treasurys?
- Lightning Round: Las Vegas Sands, ADC Telecom, Satyam Computer and More
- Lightning Round OT: Knight Capital, Ebix and More
- Is Lear, Back From Bankruptcy, a Buy?
- Sanofi-Aventis Falling Off a Patent Cliff?
- Cramer: Your Thanksgiving Week Game Plan
- Your First Move For Monday November 23rd
- Burned By JPMorgan, Whirlpool & More
- The Latest Picks That Paid - Friday November 20th
- Web Extra: Defense, Defense
Text Size 
Should you ever pull down posted material from a Web site?
It's a big debate at BoingBoing, a popular blog, according to The New York Times. Apparently a blogger there "unpublished" a bunch of posts about Violet Blue, a sex columnist and blogger. The readers of BoingBoing apparently don't approve.
This touches on an ongoing issue in Internet journalism ... pulling things down. Our technology lets us do that, if we desire. But the parameters of journalism argue against it. Once it's reported, it's reported. Could you "pull down" a newspaper article? Or a live interview on TV?
We get requests to pull down items from time to time. More often than not it is from a fellow journalist, which I find a little worrisome. And usually the request has more to do with vanity than substance ... like an awkward or unflattering interview. Sometimes it involves a mistake or stupidity, though.
You can understand the desire to make such things disappear. But that would be unfair to anyone who saw or read the piece earlier. You have to do something to signal the material wasn't right originally -- otherwise you weren't being straight up with your audience. Better to run a correction and take your lumps than engage in an Orwellian now-you-see-it-now-you-don't practice.
There might be exceptions ... something causing immediate harm to a person or company, for example. But it'd be a pretty extreme situation, I'd imagine.
Data is a real-time snapshot *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes