Media

Calling off the cybercensors at Fidelity's newspapers

by Dan Kennedy

When the editor's away at Fidelity's Community Newspaper Company, the corporate dweebs will play. On May 3, while editor-in-chief and vice-president Mary Jo Meisner was taking part in the International Press Institute congress in Boston, staffers at CNC's 100-plus newspapers in Greater Boston and on Cape Cod received a memo from Patrick Coen, vice-president for production and technology. According to the memo, a copy of which was obtained by the Phoenix, the company had decided to install software on all Internet-connected computers to "block access to inappropriate sites." On the forbidden list: "violence/profanity, partial/full nudity, sexual acts, gross depictions, intolerance/hate sites, satanic/cults, drugs/drug culture, militant/extremist behavior, dating and questionable/illegal gambling." The policy was to go into effect on May 8. But not to worry: reporters were told that if they really, really needed to view a blocked site in order to research a story, they should tell their manager, who could obtain permission within 24 to 48 hours.

"It's a newspaper company, and people were not happy," says an editorial staff member who asked not to be identified.

Meisner, to her credit, overturned the policy as soon as she got back to CNC's Needham headquarters. In a May 5 memo also obtained by the Phoenix, Meisner wrote, "Given the nature of our business and the serious issues raised by attempting to block journalists from the open access to information, I would have objected to the policy as written. While there are legitimate issues raised by the open access to objectionable sites in a workplace environment, as a newspaper and interactive media company we absolutely will not prevent access to them in the course of newsgathering and research." At some point in the future, she continued, software would be installed that would inform the user when she or he was attempting to enter an objectionable site. But that software, she said, "will allow editorial employees to click through and go to the site without delay or interference."

An annoyed Meisner, contacted by the Phoenix, protested that the original memo was a non-story, since the policy was never implemented. "Of course we wouldn't have done it. I didn't see it," she said. "It was unfortunate that it got out before I saw it, but it was taken care of the minute I got back to the office."

Fair enough. But for a company whose very existence depends on free speech, it was still a mighty close call. "If they had followed through with this it would have been outrageous," says Sarah Wunsch, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Massachusetts.

Adds Paul McMasters, First Amendment ombudsman for the Freedom Forum: "In my view, this is a questionable policy for any business, but it would be particularly inappropriate in a media environment, as the editor quickly acknowledged."