RSS FEED
- 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
- Gnashing Teeth at the Typo
- Responding to Readers on What's Clicking
MOST SHARED
- Apple Surpasses Nokia as Top Cellphone Maker by Profits
- Herbalife Vs. Hedge Funds
- AIG CEO Ready to Quit over Pay Constraints: Report
- Bring on Tougher Regulation: S&P Owner
- China Factory Output Leaps to 19-Month Highs
- Three Things the US Can Do To Stop the Dollar's Decline
- America Is On Sale
- Cramer Jeers J&J, Applauds Abbott
- US Recovery to be Weak, Erratic: Top Fed Officials
- Your First Move For Wednesday November 10th
- Lightning Round: Priceline.com, Citigroup, Transocean and More
- Web Extra: The Best Trades In Tech
- Lightning Round OT: STEC, ICICI Bank and More
- Pops & Drops: UPS, Electronic Arts...
- Herbalife Vs. Hedge Funds
- Cramer Jeers J&J, Applauds Abbott
- Cramer: In This Relay-Race Market, Who Gets Baton Next?
- Take Your Position: Retail Earnings
- The Return of Dividend Investing?
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 Apparently a blogger there "unpublished" a bunch of posts about Violet Blue, a sex columnist and blogger.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