Had he made one attempt to have it removed and it failed, then he moved on, I would be more inclined to hire him, because in my mind, he has shown maturity and has gotten on with his life.

Being online, is a great tool, and it makes research easier for the common person, and nobody should have the ability to excise pieces of their own past, just to look good.

In my opinion, the totality of who we are, is both good and bad, and the world should see it.

These days demo reels and portfolios are becoming increasingly useless, because prospective employers can pick and choose samples of work from the Internet, and get what may well be a more accurate picture of the journalist’s style and skill when the applicant isn’t the one filtering the content.

I also know one hiring manager who views Facebook, mySpace and Twitter profiles of potential applicants just to see if he can drop anyone based on “poor fit for the corporate culture” So, it’s not just drinking or partying pictures that become problematic…pictures that demonstrate a personality that he doesn’t think will mesh with the group could oust someone before the interview.

University age is the right time to examine your online image and if it’s working for or against you.

Bridget Brown
bridgetbrown.typepad.com/viewfinder

Online journalistic entities (student or professional) can not go around removing published articles simply because they become inconvenient or embarrassing for an individual. That’s absurd. Just because technology makes something possible doesn’t mean that it should be implemented. At newspapers where I’ve worked, we always had an archive morgue with bound copies of past publications – whether it was a circulation of more than 65,000 or less than 650. Before the digital age what did we do? Go into library archives, clip out our worst work and leave holes all over the place? Black out sections of text we don’t want disclosed like government bureaucrats? Of course not. That is not what journalism is about.

Students may be students, but as such they should be aware that when they enter into a professional degree program they have to conduct themselves with some degree of professionalism. That’s why most professional education programs require lower-level class members and entry-level students to take introductory writing and ethics courses before taking part in publications that are publically available. Seasoned editors and mentors are essential to student publications, and they must be just as demanding as they would be for a small weekly or large daily. The reporters themselves need to understand that they must clean up their own copy, check their own facts, and adhere to the basic practices of good journalism. I acknowledge that the work may not be stellar. After all, they are still learning. However, if the foundation of good, sound journalism is there, the author should not be so embarrassed by it as to want it obliterated from existence 5 or 10 years from the time they turn out the story.

Although writing for a class project is similar in nature, the fact is that the standards we establish for writing for publication are much different. They have to be. Student journalism is where the most crucial elements of ethical and credibility standards are taught. When it comes to the “no do-overs” rule, I’d a lot rather a journalist learn that lesson as a student writing about a frat for the yearbook than as a reporter writing about a court trial for a newspaper. By taking down articles, I fear student publications would be doing two real disservices to the students: (1) Removing the real-life consequences for poor reporting, thereby encouraging it. (2) Lowering the credibility of student publications, thus decreasing their value to students when approaching prospective employers.

I strongly believe that post-publication censorship is never the answer. How much credibility can be retained for online publications if literally any story can be retracted by erasure? It’s too slippery a slope, not to mention completely ineffective in light of existing redistribution and copy capabilities. In case of errors, running corrections is standard in print publications, and should be implemented. But rather than focus on redaction after the fact, expurgation should be the focus. A strong focus on professional standards and ethical oversight is always going to be effective. Criteria for student programs should be enforced and standards should be no less than for any ethical, credible professional publication. If something written was potentially libelous, then sufficient infrastructure should be in place to catch blatant negligence or abuse. In the end, good old-fashioned fact checking should be implemented. I know many fact-check desks are empty today, due to budget constraints and ever-tightening deadline crunches, adjustment to new technologies and competitive environments. But between learning about the passion of breaking news and the eloquence of effective writing, I hope student journalists learn the most important lessons of all – good old fashioned personal responsibility and the importance of facts, (finding them, checking them and confirming them.) It’s the foundation of a good story, and it’s the only reason that anything we do means anything at all. You wrote it. It was published. That’s the truth, and you can’t take it back.

So, rather than writing a newspaper to retract or remove an article, perhaps it’d be better to just write a personal explanation and post in an online personal web profile/portfolio, right along side a link to the article. We were all young once, and mostly we get better with age and experience. That’s something we prove by dealing with mistakes instead of hiding them.

Ultimately, reporters have to be responsible for the accuracy of what they report, those being interviewed have to be responsible for what they have said, and editors have to be trained so they can responsibly carry out their duties. Taking down stories after the fact is simply not an option. Editors for student publications need to act with an even greater degree of discernment than those in “real world” journalism, and if there is any hint of a problem, they need to hold the story. Like I always say, it’s better to hold the copy than to be left holding the bag.

The students have had requests from former student reporters whose spouse seeks anonymity, from professors who think they could have said it better in an interview, and one dean who quit mid-semester and flamed the administration in a letter to the editor. She can’t get a job.

Of course, with daily archiving by several sources and mirroring, nothing ever goes away on the web and deleting it from CyChron achieves nothing. But the real reason is student editors meeting to write the policy cannot find a policy permitting removal that will not provoke even more lawsuits.

As I’m working to build my career identity online and in networking circles, this is a issue I consider every day. In addition to high school news databases like what you have mentioned (my high school actually didn’t have one), I have various quotes on friends’ blogs or entries in online contests that show up. I don’t think these are discriminating by any means but they might not directly reflect the professional status I want to maintain online. Perhaps professional contacts will appreciate the “human” presence, perhaps they won’t even look twice. With so much communication online, it’s interesting to truely consider that each day, each action, each comment, etc., in some way builds on who you are—both in person and online.

Again thanks for your site. I’m working to start a publication for high school students (of any future major or job) to prepare for life after graduation. Later, I hope to teach high school journalism myself.

Thanks!
Karianne Salisbury
skariann.blogspot.com