Removal requests from story subjects and participants
Allied Press/ODT often receives requests to remove online material when there is no suggestion that the content is inaccurate. For example, someone convicted of a minor offence or indiscretion some years ago, or someone who was pictured or interviewed in relation to some aspect of their time at university or school may contact the ODT seeking the removal of a news story or picture about the matter.
These requests may refer to any or all of the following:
- the distress caused to the subject of the story through continued publication of the facts;
- the desire to “move on” and put any record of the event behind them;
- the impact on family, friends and acquaintances;
- the impact on professional reputation and employability or being able to rent a property;
- threats, insults or reputational damage caused by the continued publication of the facts;
- general embarrassment or discomfort at the continued publication of the material.
In dealing with such requests, the starting point is that Allied Press has already made a considered and independent editorial decision to publish the content, and that decision should be protected and maintained.
Embarrassment, discomfort and distress at the publication of accurate factual material which complies with the Allied Press' editorial standards in relation to fairness, accuracy, impartiality, etc. are not normally sufficient reasons to abandon that editorial decision.
The Privacy Act will often be cited to journalists as a reason for withholding information; the media is exempt from the Act, but only if the article in question can be regarded as a ‘news activity’. Any news activity must be ‘conducted responsibly’ and any personal information held must be related to the news activity. Hence, privacy concerns alone are not enough to compel an article to be taken down.
However, there may be exceptional circumstances where the harm or distress being caused to individuals is significant and demonstrable to the extent that it may override the public interest in continued publication of a story or some details of a story.
There are three categories where content may be modified, anonymised or – in rare cases – removed:
1. People voluntarily participated in content but wish to be removed because continued publication is causing harm or distress. The usual solution will be to amend the content to remove or anonymise them. See below, ‘Other circumstances where non-material details may be removed’.
2. The content contains allegations or evidence of wrongdoing on the part of an individual or organisation, but ultimately there was no conviction or other finding against them. The usual solution will be to update the content to indicate the outcome of proceedings or investigations.
3. The content is old (generally at least ten years), it reports on a relatively minor offence and does not involve sexual assault, child abuse or fraud, there is little or no ongoing public interest in the matter, and the person can demonstrate that continuing publication is causing genuine harm. These cases are very rare. To give one example where the ODT did take an article down, an appeal for a sighting of a person who was in mental distress, complete with photograph, from a decade previously.
When considering cases in the second and third categories, factors that should be weighed against a decision to remove the content include the person being:
- A public figure*. We would normally decline to consider removing references to public figures.
- Arrested, charged or convicted of another offence before or since.
- Notorious in some other way, whether or not they have been convicted of an offence.
- An alleged or proven sex offender.
- In a position of trust in the community*.
- Adversely named in a commission of inquiry or similar.
*Definitions:
- A public figure is any person who has been considered significantly newsworthy in any other context.
- A position of trust would include people currently acting in senior public office, the judiciary, law enforcement, teaching, supervision of children, financial advice or similar.
If it is determined that removal is warranted, upward referral to the Editor or their nominated delegate (usually the Deputy Editor, then the Associate Editors) is mandatory.
Other circumstances where non-material details may be removed
These are situations where the information being proposed for removal is not material to a proper understanding of the content and the person requesting it was a voluntary participant in the story.
For example, a story about a significant public event (such as a storm or a flood) might include a quote from a named and identified witness, such as a homeowner whose property was damaged or destroyed.
At a later date, that witness might contact Allied Press/ODT seeking that their name be removed from the report as it was being used to identify the location of their property and it was being vandalised.
In such circumstances, it might be the case that the removal of the surname or full name of the witness and the continued inclusion of all other content is judged not to impact the story's material content.
In these cases, removal should only be considered if the ODT is satisfied that:
- The information to be removed is genuinely immaterial to any reasonable understanding of the content; and
- Its continued publication in its current form is causing genuine harm.
The ODT would need to undertake its own independent research to satisfy itself that such conditions are likely to exist, and any proposal to remove content would need to be upwardly referred to an appropriately senior level.
Removal requests from creators, producers and distributors
From time to time the ODT receives removal requests from individuals involved in the creation or distribution of the content. For example, a writer may disavow and seek to withdraw their work years after publication, or the writer of contributed content has been convicted of a serious offence. While the ODT respects the wishes of content makers and distributors, these requests are generally declined unless there are compelling reasons to remove the content. Any such removal must be upwardly referred to an appropriately senior level.
Removing editorial content on social media
In general terms the same guidance applies for removing content from social platforms as for content on ODT platforms. However, the interactive nature of social media, and the varying levels of ODT control on different third-party platforms, do create some unique circumstances where content may need to be removed.
Moderation of user contributions is a risk management process and must be resourced appropriately. Content makers and managers should carefully consider their social media publishing strategy and schedule, particularly for high-risk content. They should familiarise themselves with, and make use of, the moderation tools available on the relevant platform. Different platforms come with different tools, such as the power to temporarily hide posts, or make them less visible by limiting where they can appear. The use of these tools as a legitimate part of the moderation process does not amount to removal of content as contemplated by this guidance.
Where a high volume of user contributions is received, especially a high volume of offensive or otherwise problematic contributions on one post, moderation resources may be stretched. If the appropriate moderation tools have been deployed in the first instance, but significant moderation risks remain, it may be appropriate to remove the post as a means of managing the risks and protecting the ODT and its staff and audiences. In such cases, upward referral to the appropriate editorial manager responsible for the account or page is mandatory.
Decisions to remove ODT content on social media should not be taken lightly. The risks of allowing the content to remain should be balanced against the value of free speech, robust debate and resisting the impact of malicious actors (trolls) seeking to influence our editorial decisions. It is important that the ODT not retreat from presenting content on social media that deals with controversial subjects or subjects likely to generate offensive comments and draw the attention of trolls.
Removing audience contributions on social media
On most social media platforms, users can remove their own comments and contributions. However, on occasion the ODT receives requests to remove audience contributions, typically from other users. Where such decisions are made because of the ODT exercising its normal editorial processes of moderation, no upward referral is required.
Where a user requests the removal of their own content or the content of others and there are no legitimate reasons to remove the content, the ODT will generally decline the request. In rare cases where it is proposed to grant such a request, the decision would need to be upwardly referred to an appropriately senior level.