Who owns the news? The "right to be forgotten” and journalists’ conflicting principles

I. Shapiro, B. M. Rogers
{"title":"Who owns the news? The \"right to be forgotten” and journalists’ conflicting principles","authors":"I. Shapiro, B. M. Rogers","doi":"10.4324/9781315270449-25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"“The right to be forgotten” (RTBF) is a relatively new concept in human-rights law, but it deals in root ethical issues familiar to news people and their sources. Editors must routinely weigh the news’ long-term role as a “historical record” against its potential negative impacts on individuals. In the digital-journalism era, publication is at the same time both more enduring and less static, creating new parameters and possibilities for ethical decision-making. Because news content may be seen by more people in more places for much longer, the potential to do lasting good or harm is greater, but, because digital publication is more retractable and redactible than legacy platforms, the possibility of correction, clarification and removal creates both new harm-reduction opportunities and new challenges to the historical record. Also known as a “right to erasure” or “right to oblivion,” the RTBF, now accepted in the European Union, recognizes that, even in the age of Google, people should retain some degree of control over information about themselves and their pasts. (Factsheet on the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ ruling (C131-12), n.d.; Manna, 2014; Rosen, 2012). This paper will explore both legal and ethical implications of the issue.","PeriodicalId":190578,"journal":{"name":"The Routledge Handbook of Developments in Digital Journalism Studies","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Routledge Handbook of Developments in Digital Journalism Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315270449-25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

“The right to be forgotten” (RTBF) is a relatively new concept in human-rights law, but it deals in root ethical issues familiar to news people and their sources. Editors must routinely weigh the news’ long-term role as a “historical record” against its potential negative impacts on individuals. In the digital-journalism era, publication is at the same time both more enduring and less static, creating new parameters and possibilities for ethical decision-making. Because news content may be seen by more people in more places for much longer, the potential to do lasting good or harm is greater, but, because digital publication is more retractable and redactible than legacy platforms, the possibility of correction, clarification and removal creates both new harm-reduction opportunities and new challenges to the historical record. Also known as a “right to erasure” or “right to oblivion,” the RTBF, now accepted in the European Union, recognizes that, even in the age of Google, people should retain some degree of control over information about themselves and their pasts. (Factsheet on the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ ruling (C131-12), n.d.; Manna, 2014; Rosen, 2012). This paper will explore both legal and ethical implications of the issue.
谁拥有新闻?“被遗忘权”与记者的原则冲突
“被遗忘权”(RTBF)在人权法中是一个相对较新的概念,但它涉及新闻工作者及其消息来源所熟悉的根本伦理问题。编辑必须定期权衡新闻作为“历史记录”的长期作用及其对个人的潜在负面影响。在数字新闻时代,出版同时更加持久,也不那么静态,为道德决策创造了新的参数和可能性。因为新闻内容可能会被更多的人在更多的地方看到,时间更长,造成持久的好处或伤害的可能性更大,但是,因为数字出版比传统平台更具可收回性和可编辑性,更正、澄清和删除的可能性既创造了新的减少伤害的机会,也给历史记录带来了新的挑战。RTBF也被称为“删除权”或“遗忘权”,现已被欧盟接受。它承认,即使在20世纪90年代,人们也应该对有关自己和自己过去的信息保留一定程度的控制权。(关于“被遗忘权”裁决的资料单张(C131-12),无日期;吗哪,2014;罗森,2012)。本文将探讨这一问题的法律和伦理含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信