You misunderstood what I was saying, and I am partly to blame for that. I was not saying that we shouldn't cover something unless the New York Times has written about it.
What I am saying is that if the New York Times for example covers a topic in detail but omits, say, the name and address of a minor involved, then we should arguably follow their judgment - especially if other high-quality sources have done the same. We should not go with the one source that *does* mention the minor's name and address.
Andreas
Good example, publishing of a minor's personal information by The New York Times, and republication on a hundred blogs and websites, would not change our policy and actions. Lapses of judgment by other responsible parties does not excuse us.
Likewise links to or hosting of classified documents, or offensive images, is inappropriate; it is, however, useless to suppress them. A decision to not suppress something is not approval for display in our published articles. That is a matter of editorial judgment which can be hammered out in discussions. My personal opinion with respect to classified documents is the same as it is with respect to offensive images of Mohammad; why stick someone in the eye? However, opinions differ and potential legal liability in either instance is small; we just look irresponsible while mirroring information readily available elsewhere.
It is similar to videos of sexual intercourse; there are places our readers can go.
Fred
User:Fred Bauder