The Boston Globe’s Fresh Start Initiative(bostonglobe.com)
bostonglobe.com
The Boston Globe’s Fresh Start Initiative
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/01/22/metro/globes-fresh-start-initiative-frequently-asked-questions/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link
50 comments
Absolutely - and the name of the person making false charges should be known more clearly. The current risk of false charges is too low. Same thing with death penalty - if you are on death row and project innocence proves your total innocense - prosecutors should be fired.
I mean, in this case you are talking about a crime (false charges) committed by a child. That adds a whole other level of complexity to the matter.
Well it's up to the paper, but personally, I support papers re-evaluating their positions on this sort of thing.
You'll still be able to find the old article on archive.org et al, but what a paper publishes today should reflect what it stands for today. If the paper was wrong or unfair, what is wrong with modifying or removing the coverage which is served today? Is that really worse than printing a "correction" paragraph at the end of the original article?
Maybe publishers could implement a sort of "timeline" feature which shows how the organization's understanding of an event changed over time. But today, I can't see anything wrong with a newspaper accepting petitions to modify outdated coverage.
You'll still be able to find the old article on archive.org et al, but what a paper publishes today should reflect what it stands for today. If the paper was wrong or unfair, what is wrong with modifying or removing the coverage which is served today? Is that really worse than printing a "correction" paragraph at the end of the original article?
Maybe publishers could implement a sort of "timeline" feature which shows how the organization's understanding of an event changed over time. But today, I can't see anything wrong with a newspaper accepting petitions to modify outdated coverage.
> Well it's up to the paper
Leaving it up to the paper basically means the rich get to rewrite history but the poor don't.
Leaving it up to the paper basically means the rich get to rewrite history but the poor don't.
Unfortunately that's how the world currently works.
Well that’s just awful. Changing the name is the only thing he could realistically do.
Clearing the history is dicey - internet doesn’t easily forget even when the NYT does. I believe it’s the NYT responsibility to not just report facts but to keep track of the externalities and put on work to repair them. In this case they could rewrite the article - still include the original but frame it with the context, the resolution (charges dropped), the layman explanation of resolution, etc.
Clearing the history is dicey - internet doesn’t easily forget even when the NYT does. I believe it’s the NYT responsibility to not just report facts but to keep track of the externalities and put on work to repair them. In this case they could rewrite the article - still include the original but frame it with the context, the resolution (charges dropped), the layman explanation of resolution, etc.
Reminds me of the film "Absence of Malice," directed by the great Sydney Pollack, starring Paul Newman and Sally Field.
"... That as a matter of law, the truth is irrelevant. We have no knowledge the story is false, therefore we're absent malice. We've been both reasonable and prudent, therefore we're not negligent. We may say whatever we like about Mr. Gallagher, and he is powerless to do us harm. Democracy is served."
"... That as a matter of law, the truth is irrelevant. We have no knowledge the story is false, therefore we're absent malice. We've been both reasonable and prudent, therefore we're not negligent. We may say whatever we like about Mr. Gallagher, and he is powerless to do us harm. Democracy is served."
What are the reasons why the Times should keep his name? Surely we’ve moved past the whole “erring on the side of ruining someone’s life just in case the accusation turns out to be true” thing, right?
Not for NYT apparently
No. No we have not.
The problem at that point is employers' general widespread aversion to reputation risk, which manifests itself in all kinds of ways. Erasure of the past isn't the fix for that.
It sure would be a fix for the man from the anecdote. It sounds to me like there is a starving man begging for a morsel, and you're saying to him "No, just wait until society can develop a system to keep all people fed. Feeding you isn't a fix for the real issue".
I don’t think the parent is suggesting that the Times deny this man mercy, but rather that this shouldn’t be the general policy (rather, an angry mob shouldn’t be able to jeopardize one’s livelihood).
Yes, I guess what I was getting at is that while the NYT isn't being helpful, the root of the problem is elsewhere.
This pattern occurs everywhere. Leveraging a broken system against the people most vulnerable under it with the pretense of abolishing it.
This makes sense.
I would even take it further and make it a law that if there is an online article about you, then you must be given a chance to attach your side of the story right at the last line, and if material developments have occurred (e.g. charges dropped) they must update the story at your request.
I would even take it further and make it a law that if there is an online article about you, then you must be given a chance to attach your side of the story right at the last line, and if material developments have occurred (e.g. charges dropped) they must update the story at your request.
This seems like a nice gesture, but I can't bring myself to respect anything the Globe does while they STILL maintain the evilly dark pattern of allowing you to subscribe completely online, but requiring you to call and talk your way through their retention reps to unsubscribe.
European newspapers can be even worse. Le Monde, one the biggest French newspapers, requires its customers to unsubscribe via registered mail. This is even the case for digital-only subscriptions.
I am of the opinion to be able to change names frequently (lawfully ofcourse). The problem is if you try to change jobs or buy a house, even though its legal to change your name, the system is designed with a constant identity.
This is good, but why does the "racial justice" angle have to be emphasized to the exclusion of any broader vision of mercy and proportionality?
If America were 100% white, would that mean that everyone's negative press should stain their reputation and impede their success forever?
If America were 100% white, would that mean that everyone's negative press should stain their reputation and impede their success forever?
The main objective should be to remove it from search engines.
Even if you leave names in the story but you stop search engines reading the names.
It feels like a lost cause, but search is the real culprit here.
Even if you leave names in the story but you stop search engines reading the names.
It feels like a lost cause, but search is the real culprit here.
Will this make an actual impact, if criminal records searches are what employers, landlords, etc use?
Depends on the situation. If you're trying to get a job in a bank, or for a larger organization with a standard battery of checks for all new hires, this isn't going to make much of a difference for you.
But let's say you're an independent plumber. There's a good chance that someone is going to google your name to see if you pop up on a review site or something similar as part of their standard, low-level vetting process. If the third hit is an article about you being involved in an out-of-character drunken bar fight years ago, it could really affect your business.
How many run-of-the-mill established professionals are subject to a CORI check? I'd guess less than half. How many are the subject of pre-hire, out-of-curiosity google searches? I'd guess most.
Also, old cases can be expunged or sealed by the court, if found appropriate. Your local newspaper, without a deliberate initiative like this, is unlikely update their archives even if you were completely cleared of involvement in a grisly crime for which you were a "person of interest."
Hell, even dating could be an issue.
Their initiative said it wasn't fair that well-heeled white professionals who could enlist the help of lawyers were far more likely to get that article about some drunk driving incident taken down while it was impossible for poorer people to do the same.
But let's say you're an independent plumber. There's a good chance that someone is going to google your name to see if you pop up on a review site or something similar as part of their standard, low-level vetting process. If the third hit is an article about you being involved in an out-of-character drunken bar fight years ago, it could really affect your business.
How many run-of-the-mill established professionals are subject to a CORI check? I'd guess less than half. How many are the subject of pre-hire, out-of-curiosity google searches? I'd guess most.
Also, old cases can be expunged or sealed by the court, if found appropriate. Your local newspaper, without a deliberate initiative like this, is unlikely update their archives even if you were completely cleared of involvement in a grisly crime for which you were a "person of interest."
Hell, even dating could be an issue.
Their initiative said it wasn't fair that well-heeled white professionals who could enlist the help of lawyers were far more likely to get that article about some drunk driving incident taken down while it was impossible for poorer people to do the same.
I'm sure this varies from region to region, but I don't think random people like landlords and employers are just looking up whatever you're picturing a "criminal record" looks like.
When volunteering at a high school, my police record check amounted to the "NO" box being checked for, "did the police find any reason to believe this individual would be a risk to vulnerable groups (elderly, children, disabled)?"
That being said, a lot of criminal proceedings are public record, I think? With a PACER account I can look up a pretty wild amount of stuff.
When volunteering at a high school, my police record check amounted to the "NO" box being checked for, "did the police find any reason to believe this individual would be a risk to vulnerable groups (elderly, children, disabled)?"
That being said, a lot of criminal proceedings are public record, I think? With a PACER account I can look up a pretty wild amount of stuff.
While I think it can be good, I can't help its somewhat self serving from one of their editors, who seems to have cleared harassment charges:
https://www.google.com/search?q=brian+mcgrory+boston+globe
https://www.google.com/search?q=brian+mcgrory+boston+globe
TheGrim-999(12)
I for one expect this initiative to be thoroughly misused in pursuit of elitist ideological and political objectives.
Keeping record is the most basic function of journalism. Without that, then what's the point?
Keeping record is the most basic function of journalism. Without that, then what's the point?
The charges were dropped/withdrawn at some point, the article noted that in an update. Yet there was the article, with his name and easily findable. He said it had cost him jobs, relationships, and almost his engagement.
He told me charges were dropped because this person had also made false allegations against numerous others, and this was determined to be similar.
Assuming thats true, should he be able to clear this? I'm still not sure. There are a lot of reasons for/against.