As I said in a recent Gannett Blog TV episode, I have no interest in disclosing any of the names or Social Security numbers of current and former employees, inadvertently disclosed by the U.S. Labor Department in documents I got this week. I reiterated that assurance moments ago in, a phone conversation with an agency employee who called to offer a redacted set of copies in exchange for the ones I received. (An agency employee had read my post.) I declined the offer, however, citing long-standing journalism precedents.
Updated at 11:56 a.m. ET April 9: I've agreed to accept redacted documents in return for the agency's waiving the $80.10 in copying charges; these days, that's money I can't afford to spend.
Thursday, April 08, 2010
13 comments:
Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jim, you can be trusted any day over any single one of those GCI execs!!!
ReplyDeleteI wasn't trying to be difficult. However, returning these documents is akin to turning over a reporter's notes, or a photographer's unpublished photos or video.
ReplyDeleteJim, I trust you, but I personally do not think there is any reason to not return those documents to them *after* you receive the new ones, and confirm the only difference is the removal of the SSN. You got them from them originally, not from a confidential source or some such. If you wanted to count up the pages on the orignal, and perhaps copy one on a copier or scanner for proof that they did in fact screw up should they later try to deny it, that would be okay.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't see a need to keep them. Actually, if with their redacted version they included a letter explaining/admitting the purpose of sending the second set, then it seems to me you are entirely covered journalistically.
Don't you think?
Oh, and my plan has the advantage that if someone on that list later gets their identity stolen, you won't be a suspect. Tho send it back certified mail if you take my advice. :)
ReplyDeleteDid they waive the copying fee for you since they screwed up and apparently sent too much?
ReplyDeleteWell, now I'm inclined to comply with the department's request. (I can't afford to give up that $80 copy charge waiver.)
ReplyDeleteBut I don't have the name or number for the woman who called me! So, if you're reading this: Please call me again at the same 415- phone number.
LOL
ReplyDeleteYou could always make a video of the call to DOL, showing your quest to find the woman who called you. Come on Jim. Give us some entertainment like you did the time you called USAT to ask about the missing Neuharth opinion piece!
No journalistic purpose is served by your holding on to sensitive but irrelevant information belonging to innocent third or fourth parties. You'd have a tough time defending that position. Meanwhile, every second that you delay destroying the documents, you are exposing innocent people to potential harm.
ReplyDeleteNo, no, Jim! You're complying because you're convinced you can do so and maintain your journalistic integrity while also serving the public good!
ReplyDeleteThe $80 is just gravy.
Repeat that to yourself several times until you have it down pat, sort of like the editors at newspapers do just after the ad sales guys leave their office. . .
Did the DOL explain *why* it screwed up and didn't redact the SSNs?
ReplyDelete@5:40pm
ReplyDeleteWell, *that* was a little over the top. "Every second"? Really? Do you know something about the neighborhood that Jim lives in that we don't? Lot of breakins there or something?
That's hilarious. You waive long-standing journalistic principles for the grand sum of $80. That says a lot about your principles.
ReplyDeleteAnd it says loads about my lack of income, too. Do you want to pick up the $80.10 tab?
ReplyDelete