Washington Post Ombudsman Andrew Alexander on Sunday weighed in on the growing issue of “unpublishing,” removing posted web items, sometimes from years ago.

Alexander cited a 23-year-old case involving a former U.S. Marshall deputy, who was cited for indecent exposure, but the charges were dropped and his record expounged. However, no follow-up story was ever reported, Alexander writes.

The man, Joseph P. Unice, has requested the archived story be removed claiming it is hurting his employment options. Alexander discusses the ethics involved in leaving it up or taking it down, but makes clear the paper will not change its past, even if it is embarrasing an innocent subject:

News Web sites such as The Post's increasingly hear from people who want information “unpublished.” In rare instances, requests are granted. For example, The Post deleted a woman's name as the purchaser of a home because she feared being located by a stalker.

Most requests are simply efforts to avoid embarrassment. Occasionally it's so-called “source remorse,” when someone The Post quoted wants to revise their comments to make them more articulate. Or it's a request to remove a news brief about a drunken driving conviction.

The Post properly rejects these. Altering a newspaper's historical record, which lives in digital databases and is relied on for research, can erode credibility.

Alexander does add:

The Post's guidelines for these situations should make clear not only which types of unpublishing requests should be granted but also the range of remedies. When is it best to order a follow-up story that links to the original one? Is it permissible to simply post an “update” atop an archived online story, noting later developments? And what is the level of proof that is required from people like Unice in order to convince The Post that a criminal charge went away?

All of these guidelines for unpublishing should be spelled out to the newsroom. But just as important, they should be explained to readers on The Post's Web site. Readers appreciate transparency, which builds loyalty and trust.

It reminds me of a story I wrote years ago while at Editor & Publisher. I was researching the well-known “Jimmy's World” Post story of 1980, which the infamous Janet Cooke fabricated and that eventually won her a Pulitzer Prize that she had to return. I discoverd the story had remained in the Post online archives, but with no mention of its embarassing past.

When I contacted the Post, they did not remove it, but chose to post a correction that remains there today.