

What is "news", and what is "unethical"? - fogus
http://blogs.tedneward.com/2009/07/15/What+Is+Quotnewsquot+And+What+Is+Quotunethicalquot.aspx

======
Torn
Spot-on analysis of what has gone on: journalistic responsibility doesn't
apply to this hack -- they haven't stumbled across details of shady dealings
or bad treatment of users.

Instead, it seems TechCrunch want to publish the info because a) they find it
mildly interesting, and b) a voyeuristic 'scoop' on Twitter is guaranteed to
generate a lot of traffic.

~~~
marcusbooster
If they consider themselves a "news organization" then they have an obligation
to their readers to publish "news". I don't know how much of the documents
they're gonna publish (3 of 400?), but hopefully they'll have reasonable
judgement; ie. plans for a Twitter tv show is newsworthy (tell me that
wouldn't end up on HN), and disclosing private details of an employee is not.

All these docs are gonna be leaked at some point, then _everyone_ will be
"reporting" on it.

~~~
Torn
"Other people will report sensitive info" isn't ethical justification.

IMO TechCrunch should have gone down the honest route of ' _It's interesting,
and news-worthy, and we won't publish anything damaging_ ' in their response
instead of bringing in this 'journalistic responsibility' spiel.

------
davi
If you know the goods at a certain pawnshop are stolen, but they have the best
deals in town, do you buy stuff there?

If you think TechCrunch is wrong in disseminating this information, then you
shouldn't click through to their articles. Doing so makes you complicit in
their business model.

There is a difference between someone hacking into Twitter, vs. Deep Throat
talking to Bob Woodward. I think Deep Throat was doing a public service, and
I'm happy to be complicit in his and Bob Woodward's conveyance of
"confidential" information to the public.

Was the Twitter hacker doing a public service of any kind? Or was it vendetta,
or competition, or just mischief? To the extent that there is no public
service, then by reading TechCrunch's posts of that material, you are just
buying stolen goods from a pawnshop.

------
eli
Society of Professional Journalists has a pretty well designed Code of Ethics.
<http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp>

It instructs journalists to "seek truth and report it" but also to "minimize
harm." In particular, "Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion
into anyone’s privacy." And, "Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity."

Most professional news organizations subscribe to some form of SPJ's Code of
Ethics. TechCrunch, clearly, does not.

------
edw519
In business, "trust" is an incredibly valuable asset. I've seen huge deals
made on a handshake (with agreement to draw up contracts) based solely on the
mutual trust the parties have earned.

It's also the most slippery of assets. Lose it and it's gone forever.

Regardless of _your_ definition of "ethical", if _I_ think it's unethical,
then you've lost my trust and our relationship is over. Was it worth it?

------
tannerburson
I've been pondering what about this whole mess it is that keeps mentally
poking me. And the problem I have is the blatant hypocrisy of Arrington et al
in the handling of this story.

The first post he made about this attempted to make the case that this was
standard operating procedure, and really isn't anything out of line with the
way things are normally handled. If that's the case, then why write a story
talking about the fact that you've been given stolen documents containing
large amounts of previously secret information. Then go on to say you won't
post the personal information, and you're only posting the parts you find
newsworthy.

If it's so normal, wouldn't you just post the stories, and mention that your
source was some leaked documents you'd been given? You only do that if you
feel you have something to justify, something to explain. In otherwords, you
think you might be wrong.

So instead of handling this like they would any other source, for any other
article, they've justified the source _well_ in advance of actually using it.
It's hypocritical and proves that all of this was just another stunt to drum
up traffic.

Personally I'm done with TechCrunch. I won't follow links there, if I end up
there by mistake, I'm closing quickly. I won't support this sort of blatant
hypocrisy and grandstanding. It's not professional. It's not needed.

------
erikb
I am certainly not in the group of people, who believe revealing the stolen
twitter data is good. But articles like this one make it really hard for me,
not to argue out of the techcrunch perspective. I've read the comments there,
too. And they are saying again and again that no personal data will be shown
to public eyes. So I don't know, where's the problem to understand this point
and why everybody, every time again, is writing about this point. Maybe there
really is nothing morally wrong with everything that techcrunch says, they
really want to publish (about strategy and cashflow numbers).

------
roc
It seems to me that once information that any one might care about hits the
internet, -someone- is going to publish it.

If you think some site publishing it is not cool, all you can do is vote with
your mouse.

Maybe it's surprising to find what you thought was a cool site pulling a dick-
move. But it's unlikely that they'll do anything differently in the future.

Sites select their readers with their content. This is clearly the kind of
thing they'd publish day-in and day-out if they had it. So all that's left is
deciding whether you still want to be in their audience.

------
joubert
Nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest, quam ipse haberet.

~~~
skmurphy
No one can transfer to another a right which he himself does not possess.

------
Musashi
Someone should do the same to Tech Crunch and see how they like it.

~~~
edw519
They'd like the publicity. Better to flag and ignore them.

------
vaksel
One company's news, is another company's unethical. i.e. here techcrunch
doesn't wish to release private info, but for a tabloid, that's all they print

------
petercooper
Forget about "journalism" and "ethics" and let the _law_ do its job. If
publishing this information is illegal, TechCrunch will be in trouble. If it's
not, they won't.

Ethics have little use in a group discussion over something so trivial because
no-one can agree on the boundaries. Is Fox News's treatment of stories
"journalisically ethical"? A popular view is that it's not, but is what
they're doing _illegal_? It doesn't seem so - so a lot of people just avoid
Fox News. Likewise, if TechCrunch's ethics jar with you, don't read their
stuff and just trust the law to deal with any transgressions they make.

Michael Arrington seems like a new, tech equivalent of Kelvin MacKenzie
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_MacKenzie>) to me - a good thing in my
book. He might not be loved, but he knows how to be a damn good editor and get
people reading - that's what media's all about.

~~~
eli
IANAL, but it's unlikely that publishing the documents would be illegal.
Unethical and sleazy, sure. But what law would they break?

~~~
shpxnvz
If the documents can reasonably be classified as trade secrets, the aggrieved
party may be able to seek damages from the "informant" and an injunction
against the continued publishing of them by the "press."

Of course, once the cat is out of the bag there's no putting it back in, so
there's really not much benefit beyond punishing the party who stole them in
the first place.

