Methodology

Asking newsrooms directly

When we can't tell a newsroom's policy from what it publishes, we ask. This page shows exactly what we send, what we do with the answers, and how many newsrooms have replied so far, as our methodology commits us to.

Draft wording. Nothing has been sent yet, and the questions may still change.

How it works

We write to one editorial address per newsroom, taken from its own website (a masthead, staff or contact page) or checked by one of us. If we don't hear back in about 10 business days, we send one reminder. If there's still no reply about 10 business days after that, the record says "No response received". Every email has a link to stop all contact, and a newsroom that uses it is recorded as "Declined to participate".

Neither of those is held against anyone. Editors are busy, and student editors turn over every year. Before an answer changes a record, we confirm the person really works at the newsroom, and their answers are one source among others, not the final word. The paper connected to the founder's own case is never contacted automatically (see the disclosure).

Who has replied

No newsroom has been contacted yet.

Updated live. We mostly write to newsrooms that publish an editorial address, so the ones that don't, or whose websites we couldn't read, are under-represented. Treat these as counts, not as response rates for newsrooms in general.

Questions

Every question is optional, and most offer "not sure" or "prefer not to say", so skipping one is never recorded as an answer.

1. Written policy

1. Does your publication have a written policy on requests to change, update, anonymize, de-index or remove previously published material?
   • Yes, and it is publicly available
   • Yes, but it is internal (not published)
   • No written policy, but there is an established practice
   • No written policy or established practice
   • A policy is being developed
   • Not sure
   • Prefer not to say
2. If it is public, where can it be read? (free text)
3. If known, when was the current version adopted or last revised? (free text)

2. Remedies

Each remedy is recorded separately. A publication may permit one and rule out another without contradiction.

1. For previously published material, how does your publication treat each of the following?

   For each of: Correction; Update for later developments; Editor's note / context; Anonymization or redaction; Search-engine de-indexing; Removal / unpublishing. Options: Permitted / Considered case by case / Ruled out / Not addressed or not sure / Prefer not to say.

3. Decision-making

1. Who makes the final decision on such a request?
   • Editor-in-chief (or equivalent)
   • An editorial board or committee
   • A standards or managing editor
   • Publisher, general manager or owner
   • A faculty or staff adviser
   • A university or parent-organization office
   • Other
   • Not sure
   • Prefer not to say
2. If other, or if several people share the decision, please describe. (free text)
3. Student media only: what role, if any, does an adviser play in these decisions? (free text)

4. Criteria and process

1. Is there a documented process for reviewing these requests?
   • Yes
   • No
   • Not sure
   • Prefer not to say
2. What criteria guide the decision? (free text)
3. How should a member of the public submit a request, and is there a way to ask for reconsideration? (free text)

5. Anything else

1. Is there an official statement or clarification you would like the Project to consider? (free text)

Use of answers

• On the record: answers and statement may be published and attributed to the publication
• On background: may inform the research but will not be quoted or attributed
• Not for quotation: for the research team only

Respondents also give their role (required) and, optionally, their name, which is never published.

The emails

Hello,

We're the Archive Ethics Project, a new, independent effort documenting how U.S. newsrooms handle requests about old stories: corrections, updates, removing a name, keeping a story out of search results, or taking it down. We're trying to record each newsroom's approach accurately, and the best source is the newsroom itself.

{{finding}}

Would you, or whoever handles these requests at {{publication}}, answer a few questions? There are five short sections, every question is optional, and you decide whether your answers are on the record, on background, or for our research only:
{{survey_url}}

We don't rate newsrooms. If we don't hear back, your record will just say "No response received", and we don't read anything into that. You can ask us to correct your record whenever you like: {{corrections_url}}

The questions and how we use the answers are public: {{methodology_url}}

If you'd rather not be contacted about this again, this link stops all messages to {{publication}}:
{{optout_url}}

Thank you,
The Archive Ethics Project
{{site_url}}

Hello,

Following up on our note from {{invited_date}} about how {{publication}} handles requests about old stories. This is the only reminder we'll send.

The questions are here, and all of them are optional:
{{survey_url}}

If now isn't a good time, that's fine. Your record will say "No response received", and you can send us information whenever you want.

To stop hearing from us: {{optout_url}}

Thank you,
The Archive Ethics Project
{{site_url}}