Publisher’s Perspective: The delicate balance

In 17 years, I’ve made lots of difficult publishing decisions at Watermark. But during the holidays I was presented with three unique dilemmas, all consequential and none with a clear solution.

Taken as a whole, they reflect changing technology and the appealing complexity of LGBT journalism. At Watermark we function as bulletin board, spotlight, magnifying glass and megaphone. It gets tricky sometimes.

Here are the situations. My imperfect solutions follow.
• Several years ago we reported on legal complications at a local business. One of the persons involved contacted me with a humble and heartfelt plea: Would we consider removing the story from our archive? As I confirmed, when you Google this person’s name the unflattering story remains prominent. This has created problems for him, professionally and personally.

He told me it recently came up in both a job-related interview, and even on a date. He acknowledged that the story is accurate, but noted that the matter was later resolved.

His request raises numerous issues, and it has weighed on me heavily. Legal difficulties are sometimes reported, but their resolution almost never is. And in an age where anyone can do a comprehensive background search via Google, even the most mundane reporting has the half-life of plutonium.

Newspapers are intended to be timely; not part of an unintended and never-ending resume. But they also function as an historical record. If I tamper with the record in this case, it would open the door to similar and even more compelling requests.

What would you do?

• Police conducted a sting operation at a public park in Sarasota County, and a handful of men were arrested and charged with indecent exposure. We obtained the story from a wire service. Like the original report we published the names of the men arrested, which are public record.

We felt the story worth reporting on two levels: to share that police were monitoring this public venue, and to encourage thoughtful consideration of behavior and arrests of this kind. These were victimless crimes involving activity among consenting adults. But they took place at a park frequented by children. In 2011, it is difficult to imagine that the perpetrators were unable to find a more discrete and appropriate outlet

One reader expressed sincere disappointment. “Was exposing these men’s identities really necessary to the newsworthiness of the story?” his letter to the editor asked. “I felt as if I were reading a right-wing tabloid, not a respected LGBT newspaper.”

What would you do?

• In consecutive issues we examined the circumstances surrounding the closing of a local LGBT business. The stories were factual and balanced, offering quotes from different sources and perspectives.

Reaction to such stories, often in the form of unsigned web comments, is reprinted on our “Mail” page. Several comments pertaining to this particular story were personal, hyperbolic and did little to advance dialogue. We printed them anyway, hoping that readers would form their own opinion—about the authors and the matter being considered.

Some respected local business owners were outraged that we would publish such attacks, especially without attribution. And they expressed concern that any LGBT business would be similarly vulnerable to personal, unsubstantiated and anonymous commentary—in the very LGBT press they support with their advertising. A few even refused to distribute the offending issue of Watermark.
What would you do?

I gave serious consideration to each of these situations, and spoke with staff members and sage supporters of the newspaper for fresh perspectives. Nonetheless, my solutions are imperfect.

In the first case, I felt great sympathy for the person requesting the archive edit. But I also felt that removing or redacting unflattering but accurate stories would fatally compromise Watermark’s important role as a historical record. The person’s name has been removed from the headline, however, and I sincerely hope this will drop the story on Google.

In the second case, I concluded that it was a mistake to publish the names of those arrested. They were unimportant to the story and to any consideration of the issues raised. The names have been removed from the story in our archive. In this case, unlike other arrests, the crime and punishment are both born of shame. As an LGBT newspaper, we should not be complicit. One staff member asked if the result would be the same if one of those arrested were prominent. That’s a tough call I hope I never have to make.

The third case is the most complex. One friend observed that Watermark’s responsibility may be to report what happens truthfully, but its mission is to nurture the LGBT community and the people and businesses that comprise it.

It’s a difficult balancing act. Truth is important to nurturance, and feedback is essential to both. But on this side of the computer screen, it’s sometimes easy to forget how we would feel if someone attacked our friends, family or business unfairly and without attribution. In the future, our editorial staff will consider comments—especially anonymous ones being considered for publication in the newspaper—more carefully.

If we lose balance, as happens sometimes, I trust that you’ll let us know.