For most, it’s a big deal to appear in the newspaper. If a journalist photographs them at a ballgame or quotes their thoughts about the Sprint Center opening, people usually keep copies as souvenirs.
On other occasions, though, a mention in The Kansas City Star or on KansasCity.com isn’t an event to remember.
Three times in the past few weeks, readers have requested that editors remove items on the Web site that had already appeared in print. One e-mailer felt a picture taken of her at an event wasn’t flattering. A mother didn’t want other family members to see a mention of her son’s arrest. And a man with a recent annulment didn’t want the public records that The Star published to be one of Google’s first hits on his name.
In all of these cases, I agree with the editors’ decisions: There were no errors in the coverage, so the pages remained on KansasCity.com until their normal expiration.
I certainly understand exactly why someone might want information erased from the site, especially when it’s fairly trivial. After all, a photo taken from a bad angle or a county record of a nullified marriage might be embarrassing — but there’s a new Star every day, and the memory will gradually fade as newspapers disappear to the recycling bin.
But stories have a lot more longevity than the paper itself. Pages generally stay live on KansasCity.com for about two weeks, but there are many places where the information lives on. Google keeps a cache of many Web pages for months. And several computer databases like LexisNexis and Newsbank save The Star’s content permanently.
Every edition of the physical paper is also photographically microfilmed, and libraries around the region store copies for future generations’ reference.
The Star has an obligation not to create a memory hole, even if the subjects of its coverage would prefer for the records to disappear. Journalism is often called “the first draft of history,” and newspapers can’t delete information selectively, despite the discomfort it sometimes causes.
Covering Fred Phelps
A very thoughtful reader phoned me Tuesday morning about that day’s Page A-1 story on the Phelps family of Topeka and the Westboro Baptist Church, which was sued successfully by Albert Snyder of York, Pa., for their disruptive protests of his son’s funeral.
“I just worry that you’re giving the Phelpses exactly what they want by putting them in the paper,” said my caller.
That’s a perfectly fair point. Protests and demonstrations of any stripe are always a problem, as they’re generally designed specifically to attract media attention. Events like the Phelps family’s are even tougher cases, as they involve a very small number of participants but generate a great deal of public outrage.
The Star hasn’t actually covered Westboro Baptist much recently. In the past five years, Fred Phelps has been mentioned 90 times in the paper, with more than a fifth of those coming in the Opinion section. I don’t think that’s a lot, especially considering that his reputation extends around the globe.
Ultimately, the reader and I agreed that this specific incident is different. The church’s everyday protests aren’t news, but the lawsuit was. It deserved its place on the front page.
Join the discussion
Share your observations and experiences about news. Lively, open debate is the goal, but please refrain from personal attacks or comments that are racist, vulgar or otherwise inappropriate. If you see an inappropriate comment, please click the "Report as violation" link to notify a KansasCity.com editor. Thanks for your feedback.