Last week, a story about a clash between Health Cabinet Secretary Aden Duale and Principal Secretary Ouma Oluga was withdrawn from the Daily Nation’s website nation.africa and later replaced by a new, significantly different version.
An initial Editor’s Note stated that the story had been “temporarily withdrawn for editorial review”. The note on the new version reads: “An earlier version of this story had alluded to a clash between Dr Oluga and CS Duale on the planned absorption of UHC staff.
We have since established that) the letters issued by the CS and PS on August 25 do not contradict each other.”
In the same week, three requests for the removal of articles from the website made to the Nation editors were rejected, raising several questions: Was it a case of double standards, insensitivity, or malice? How do the editors decide which stories should be withdrawn or unpublished from the websites?
Why and how should a story be withdrawn or unpublished? Who has the authority to withdraw, amend , or unpublish a story?
In the first case, a man wants a story about an assault case, filed a few years ago, removed from the website.
He claims to have “resolved” the matter. The man says he was denied a consultancy after one of the people awarding it saw his name in the story.
In the second request, a man claiming to be the legal representative of a politician and businessman seeks to have a story about his client being sued in a US court deleted from the site.
He says the client “is enduring immense hardship” because of the story, which, he claims, is inaccurate.
“The article in question is causing significant emotional and reputational hardship to him and his family,” he adds, and asks the editor to consider deleting the story to prevent “further damage”.
Incidentally, the client had sued the Nation Media Group for defamation, and the case was dismissed after NMG produced documents proving the story’s accuracy.
The third request came from a prominent corporate leader who has been charged with defrauding an equally prominent businessman.
He pleads innocence and asks that the story be taken down because it is costing him both reputation and opportunities.
He has missed out on two board of directors’ positions, including chairing the board of a large bank, because of the article. He argues that it has been a long while since the story was published and retaining it on the website serves no purpose.
For good measure, the corporate leader revealed that he had managed to have the story deleted from the websites of all other media houses.
Editorial Policy and Guidelines
The issue of unpublishing stories from the websites has been discussed in this space before. However, as such requests have become common, it is fair to scrutinise the editors’ decisions to determine if they acted justly and in strict adherence to the NMG’s Editorial Policy and Guidelines.
The Group’s Editorial Policy, which is available to the public on the corporate website on this link—www.nationmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Editorial-policy-online.pdf —states that “NMG’s editors must take care to ensure that content published across all its platforms is accurate because such content forms part of the permanent historical public record and its existence serves a public function.
It is in the public interest”. It further warns against deletion or amendment of content “without a good or exceptional reason, which reason must be communicated to the audience”.
Last year, the group developed standard operating procedures (SOPs) to guide editors further. The SOPs define “exceptional reason”, in addition to outlining the processes of requesting removal, decision making and the options available to editors.
According to the document, content may be removed from NMG websites for the following reasons: legal matters, such as uncleared rights, defamation or contempt of court; genuine safety risks to individuals; significant harm or distress to a contributor to whom NMG has a duty of care; a serious breach of editorial standards that cannot be rectified except by removal of the article; issues of child-protection, or where tragic events make the content unsuitable for continued publication.
Claims that an article is inaccurate, biased, or seriously misleading are investigated and corrected where appropriate. The editors also abide by valid court orders to delete articles.
According to the SOPs, where it is claimed that a story has caused, or continues to cause distress to a person, an assessment of the significant harm or distress that continued publication is causing an individual is made by the editors. However, embarrassment is not sufficient on its own to justify removing content. In addition, removal will never be authorised simply to improve an individual’s job prospects or self-esteem.
For court cases, if an individual is acquitted of the charges, the story will be updated to state so, not removed.
If investigating the claims raised by a complainant is likely to take time, the Editor-in-Chief may withdraw the story temporarily pending editorial review. An Editor’s Note explaining this action must be published, and the editors are expected to amend and reinstate the story as soon as possible.
Transparency and integrity
The editors are expected to be transparent by informing users if and why a story has been unpublished, withdrawn temporarily, or amended.
In view of the above guidelines, the Public Editor finds that the Nation editors were right in declining all three requests to unpublish stories.
Contact the Public Editor to raise ethical concerns or request a review of published material. Reach out: Email: [email protected] . Mobile Number: 0741978786. Twitter and linkedin: PublicEditorNMG
