Episode 138: The Right to Be Forgotten

Listen to this Episode of "Coffee with Gringos" here or on iTunes, Spotify, Google Play and Stitcher.

Paige: You are listening to “Coffee with Gringos”.  I'm Paige Sutherland.

Ian: And I'm Ian Kennedy.

Paige: And today we're going to talk about a new and special initiative that a few newspapers across the country have started that revolve around crimes and reporting, and how much of an impact some of this digital footprint has on people who are trying to get a fresh start. So, we're going to talk about this initiative that a few newspapers in the US are doing. So again, listeners as always if you get lost, check out that audio guide and transcript online. Ian—newspapers across the country are thinking about how they're reporting, what they're covering and how anything that goes online lasts forever. It's a very new initiative and something that is really not heard of and definitely sparked by a lot of this Black Lives Matter and racial injustices that we're hearing and seeing in the US. Were you shocked by this?

Ian: Yeah, I mean it seems like this is something that isn't very common, right? I think taking down or changing a story in journalism doesn't really happen.

Paige: No, it never happens. I mean, I've been a journalist now for almost ten years and it's really hard to get someone to change something. Once it's published, it's published unless it is factually wrong. Then they have to go through a whole process of making an edit, which is basically, as you know, a footnote at the end of the story that says, “Sorry for the correction. This is what was meant to be said or typed.” So, the fact of going into old stories that are ten or fifteen years old and either deleting them or completely changing sentences is really unheard of. It's not the normal in journalism.

Ian: And so, you started talking about this initiative, but, where did it really come from? Where did it start?

Paige: Yeah, so it actually came from Europe. For many years, they've had this “Right to be Forgotten” law where you could reach out to different outlets and make a case about, “Hey, I'd like this article taken down.” You know, whether it was racially biased, incorrect, maybe gave you a negative light where you were charged of a crime but never convicted but yet a lot of news outlets don't update that. So, say Ian, you were charged with possession of marijuana, but you were never convicted of it. If I Googled your name, there would be an article online that would stay forever that says “Ian Kennedy was charged with possession of marijuana.” Which most people would infer that led to a conviction and so it could lead to you never being hired or maybe not accepted for a fellowship or into a certain university or what have you but really you did nothing wrong. Just because you were charged of something does not mean you were convicted, and yet that digital footprint stays on the internet forever.

Ian: So, it's just something that could follow you around forever, regardless if you were guilty or not guilty. Just having your name in that way online forever would, you’re right, limit you from job opportunities or fill-in-the-blank. It could be anything.

Paige: Exactly. And just for our listeners to give some perspective and background when it came to journalism many, many years ago, police reporting was very common. Newspapers would literally take police blotters and publish them online and publish them in the newspapers of “X person was arrested for shoplifting” or you know whatever it was and just take verbatim some of these police journals. And that stays forever and there's no follow-up of whether they were wrongfully charged, whether it led to a conviction or not. Maybe some of the initial reporting from the police wasn't backed up and is wrong but that stays in the article. And as we talked about, it can really hurt you in the future of something you did “x” day twenty years ago that you never even got convicted of and it can haunt you and really limit some opportunities.

Paige: Hey, Ian. Did you know besides the podcast, Dynamic English offers one-on-one classes of native teachers from all over the world?

Ian: Really? But isn't it just a bunch of grammar lessons?

Paige: No, it's completely discussion-based and focuses on topics the student is interested in.

Ian: That's amazing. But what if I'm not living in Chile?

Paige: No problem. Dynamic does online classes. You can be living anywhere.

Ian: Great, but I'm a little intimidated to take the class alone. Can I join with a friend?

Paige: Of course. Dynamic offers group classes of up to four. Plus, for the next month, Coffee with Gringos listeners get 10% off individual or group classes. So go online to www.dynamicenglish.cl and mention that you are a listener and get your discount.

Ian: Well, I'm sold. Sign me up.

Ian: Why exactly is this happening now though? Why didn't this happen before do you think?

Paige: Yeah, so I think that with this summer there was quite an awakening, and newspapers, news outlets felt like they could maybe take an initiative themselves and I caught wind of this in my own city of Boston. The Boston Globe is a very reputable newspaper—it's been around forever—and it's one of the city’s and state’s main sources of news. And they kind of took some ownership that, “We did write on crimes too frequently that was part of our coverage many years ago and maybe wasn't fair if our coverage was racially biased and didn't back up.” A lot of the initial reports from police didn't follow up to see if these lead to convictions and thought that if they could play a part that they would do this where, “Hey, we're kind of taking some ownership that maybe we had coverage that wasn't racially fair and didn't follow up on some charges to make sure that they should still be reported on. So, everyone if you feel like you have an injustice and have something online that's hurting you, that shouldn't be, reach out to us and we will consider taking it down or changing it.” And so, I think it was like an initiative where newspapers were like how do we take some ownership and make sure that we're not adding to the problem? Because if you're a person of color in the US, it's hard enough to get a job because you have a lot of racial barriers within the system. Do you also need your future employer Googling you and seeing an article about you putting you in a very negative light where you did nothing wrong?

Ian: Right. So, that sounds like they're kind of taking accountability for some of those stories that they had before and just not make it more and more difficult for people to clear their names or to not have this bad reputation because of just one thing, perhaps online. And so now as a journalist, you these things a little bit better than me and so I wanted to ask you—do you think this is something that's going to catch on and spread with other publications? Do you think this is something that might become a standard in journalism moving forward? Or do you think perhaps it might just be the Boston Globe and some other publications that decide to make this ethical change?

Paige: I think it's a really good question. I mean, I think newspapers definitely had more of a history of reporting on crime and as we know with all the racially biased policing we've heard about this summer and has been in the US for decades, it means a lot of those crime stories were targeted at a certain ethnic group, which is unfair coverage. What you cover and what you don't can be biased and so I think it's important that a lot of newspapers are realizing that and changing their coverage and they have a lot of newspapers don't do the kind of stories that they normally would. They don't do a lot of crime stories and they definitely are thinking more about if I'm going to do a story about shoplifting, if there's a white man who was shoplifting and a black man who was shoplifting, I either report on neither of them or both of them. You can't pick and choose who you think is a criminal and who's not and what's the story was not for that. I think the slippery slope with having this be an initiative for all newspapers is that where do we stop? Like if it's just crimes, is it then every story that everyone can appeal to and try to take down? I mean, that would be an issue because journalism is supposed to be, you're reporting on something that might be not great for some people but it's the truth. You don't want people who did something wrong and is like, “Well, that makes me look bad. Take that down.” And it's like “Well, we’re not here to make you look good or bad. It's the facts. If you did ‘x’ and we report on ‘x’, then that's a story.” So, I think you could have this slippery slope if every newspaper is like, “Reach out to us if you want something taken down” because everyone would want every story taken down because everyone always has a problem with every story because there's always someone that looks great because someone else looks bad, right?

Ian: So, I assume that there are also some people out there who probably don't think this initiative is a good idea because maybe there, I don't know, journalism purists in the sense that they say, “You know once something's written, it should stay the way it was. It's a snapshot in time, in history.” So, I'm not sure if you've heard of any opponents to it but I'm sure they also exist.

Paige: Yeah, I mean I think being a journalist, it goes against the grain of journalism. We report the facts and sometimes the facts aren’t favorable to certain people and that's okay. That's journalism, so it is a little scary to think of taking things down and changing things after the fact because back in the day, journalism was a newspaper. You can't redact a newspaper. It's out there, it's on paper, it's forever. But now we live in this digital age where it is a little scary that things are out there online forever. But we do have more of a capability to change things, but we have to find that balance of changing things in the right moment and not changing things in the right moment because just because the story looks bad for someone if it's true, we shouldn't change it. We have no right to that but if we're reporting on something that was never a story, to begin with, then I think that has a fair case of this story is hurting someone's life, we never would cover it today. We've realized it's unfair to have this kind of coverage. That's the case and I think these newspapers are taking it case by case as they should instead of just everyone, we will take down your stories.

Ian: Right. It should be a real case-by-case basis, not just a blanket sort of change. I'm sure it'll be interesting to see how this sort of develops and see if people really take advantage of this new initiative and again, I hope people can clear their names so it's not a scarlet letter that follows them around forever.

Paige: No, I agree. The initiative is really just to kind of get at that. It's not supposed to change the way we do journalism. It's not supposed to take every new article down that someone doesn't like. It's really that, “Hey, our coverage was racially biased and insensitive and hurt some lives and this is how we're going to redress it.” Open up the option to, if we did do a wrong to take it down and I think that's taking some ownership which is great because the media is powerful and we all know that what is said about us online stays. So, it's important that if it's the truth, then it's out there, but if it's not fair, then it shouldn't be. So, yeah so me and Ian just wanted to chat with everything going on these days about racial injustice in the US. I think this is just one initiative that we thought was something worth chatting about. So, listeners, we'll provide more in the transcript and if you get lost, please check that out. As always, thanks for listening.

Ian: We'll see you next time.

Ian: “Coffee with Gringos” officially has over one hundred episodes and we are among the “Top Podcasts in Chile”. And that’s thanks to you. But we are always working to grow our audience so make sure to rate sure to rate, review and share us.  

Key Vocabulary, Phrases & Slang:

 1.     initiative (noun): an act or strategy used to fix or improve a situation.

a.     Media outlets are starting an initiative to correct unfair past publications.

2.     to spark (verb): to inspire or provide the stimulus for something.

a.      The new plan was sparked by some European media news sources.

3.     to reach out (phrasal verb): to contact or communicate.

a.     It is important to reach out to news outlets if they are writing unfair journalism.

4.     biased (adjective): unfairly prejudiced for or against something or someone.

a.     We will not tolerate this biased media coverage.

5.     convicted (adjective): having been declared guilty of a crime by the verdict of a jury or judge.

a.     The convicted killer wasn’t satisfied with the result of the court.

6.     to infer (verb): to assume or conclude something from evidence and not statements.

a.     From these facts, we can infer that crime has been increasing.

7.     blotter (noun): Police notebook used for recording crimes.

a.      The police blotters were sent to major publications to be in the news.

8.     verbatim (adverb): in exactly the same words as were used originally.

a.     You need to tell me what you were talking about with him verbatim.

9.     to back up (phrasal verb): to support and confirm the facts of an event.

a.     The witness reports could not back up the police report that was written.

10.  to haunt (verb): to be persistently in the mind of someone.

a.     That story haunts him to this day.

11.  to catch wind (idiom): to find out or become aware of something.

a.     She is going to catch wind of the story soon and be very angry.

12.  reputable (adjective): having a good reputation.

a.     This particular news channel is a very reputable source.

13.  accountability (noun): responsibility.

a.     The channel decided to take accountability for the things they wrote.

14.  to catch on (phrasal verb): to become popular and widespread.

a.     Do you think this initiative will catch on in the industry?

15.  slippery slope (noun): something which can lead to something bad or wrong.

a.     He is on the slippery slope toward a life of crime.

16.  to appeal (verb): to make a serious or urgent request for a change.

a.     People are now appealing to the news sources to take down their stories.

17.  against the grain (idiom): against the natural feeling of someone or something.

a.     Changing old stories goes against the grain in the world of journalism.

18.  to redact (verb): edit text for a publication.

a.     The newspaper redacted the racist story that they published.

19.  scarlet letter (noun): an embarrassing or damaging mark that stays with someone.

a.     A bad article can be a scarlet letter that follows someone forever.