The digital age has transformed the way news is consumed and remembered. What was once a fleeting headline in a newspaper has now become a permanent fixture on the internet. In an era where search engines dictate how easily someone’s past can be unearthed, an Ohio news outlet is taking a bold step to redefine journalism’s ethical responsibilities.
The initiative, which their editor-in-chief refers to as the “right to be forgotten,” aims to balance the public’s right to information with an individual’s ability to move on from past mistakes.
Challenging the Tradition of Permanent News Archives
Traditionally, news organizations have refrained from removing or altering past reports, considering their archives a historical record. However, the presence of mug shots and crime reports in online search results can continue to affect individuals long after they have served their sentences and rehabilitated themselves. A single online search can bring up decades-old mistakes, making it difficult for individuals to secure jobs, reintegrate into society, or move past a youthful indiscretion.
Chris Quinn, the editor of Cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer, is leading the charge to change this. He argues that much like how civil rights attorneys work to seal criminal records for individuals who have completed their sentences, news organizations should also reconsider the accessibility of stories that no longer serve a public interest.
A Movement Gaining National Attention
Quinn’s advocacy has sparked interest beyond Ohio. According to The Guardian, the idea has resonated with several other major publications, including The Boston Globe, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Bangor Daily News in Maine, The Oregonian, and NJ.com.
These news organizations are now re-evaluating the way they handle old crime reports and mug shots, ensuring that they do not serve as a lifelong punishment for individuals who have moved forward with their lives.
Quinn’s efforts began in 2018 when he initiated a review of Cleveland.com’s archives. In an article on the website, he detailed how his team had already removed five names and mug shots from their digital records. He shared examples of individuals whose lives had been negatively impacted by the continued availability of their past mistakes.
The Human Impact of Digital Records
Quinn recounted the story of one woman who had worked in the healthcare industry before she was convicted of stealing drugs from her employer. After serving her sentence, a judge officially declared that she had completely rehabilitated herself.
“One was someone who had been in the health field and stole some drugs from her employer. A judge eventually declared that she not only had completed her sentence but had completely rehabilitated herself.”
Despite her rehabilitation, her mug shot and the news articles detailing her crime remained easily accessible through a simple Google search. This prevented her from rebuilding her career in a different field.
Another case involved a man who had stolen scrap metal years ago. He had completed his sentence and had even gone through the process of having his criminal record sealed by the court. However, Cleveland.com’s article about his crime remained online, continuing to affect his reputation and opportunities.
“She lost her license to work in her healthcare field, but as she sought to begin a new career, any Google search of her name brought up our stories about her crime, along with her mug shot. Another was a man who stole some scrap metal years ago, completed his sentence, and had his record sealed. Yet our story dogged him.”
These individuals, and many others like them, reached out to Quinn’s team, pleading for their names and mug shots to be removed from public view. At first, Quinn hesitated, feeling bound by the journalistic tradition of preserving historical records. However, over time, he realized that adhering to this tradition was doing more harm than good.
“I couldn’t take it anymore… I just got tired of telling people no,” he admitted in an interview with The Guardian.
Google’s Unexpected Support
In an ironic twist, Google—one of the very entities responsible for keeping these stories in public view—ended up supporting Quinn’s efforts. In 2022, the tech giant provided Cleveland.com with a $200,000 grant to help identify and remove outdated crime reports from their extensive archive of 1.4 million content pieces.
This funding allowed Quinn’s team to be more proactive in their approach, systematically searching for stories that might be unfairly impacting individuals who had long since served their sentences or who had simply been caught in a moment of public embarrassment.
Other News Outlets Follow Suit
The movement to reconsider the permanence of crime reporting has gained traction in other regions as well. The Oregonian, for example, has adopted a case-by-case approach to reviewing removal requests. Editor Therese Bottomly explained that while some articles are removed entirely, others are “deindexed” from search engines, meaning they no longer appear in Google searches but can still be found in the publication’s archives for historical or legal reasons.
Each case is carefully evaluated to determine whether it meets the criteria for removal. However, certain stories remain accessible if the individual’s actions reached a level of severity that justifies continued public access.
Bottomly emphasized that this approach is not about erasing history but about ensuring that past mistakes do not become permanent barriers to reintegration into society.
“These folks are going to be our neighbors, our co-workers and hopefully contributing members of society someday,” she told The Guardian. “So should we figure out ways to at least not be an unnecessary barrier to re-entry for something truly minor and in the past, and for which somebody has paid their debt?”
The Ethics of Journalism in the Digital Age
The “right to be forgotten” debate raises important questions about the responsibilities of journalists in the internet era. On one hand, maintaining a public record of past crimes serves the purpose of accountability and historical accuracy. On the other hand, the easy accessibility of digital archives means that minor infractions can haunt individuals indefinitely, even after they have demonstrated rehabilitation and paid their debt to society.
Quinn’s initiative challenges the long-held belief that news archives should remain untouched. Instead, it suggests a more nuanced approach—one that considers the long-term consequences of keeping certain stories accessible online.
What are your thoughts? Please comment below and share this news!
True Activist / Report a typo
