Sam Levin:

It was long considered taboo in media to retract or alter old stories, particularly when there are no concerns about accuracy. But Quinn said he felt an ethical obligation to rethink those norms. “I couldn’t take it any more … I just got tired of telling people no and standing on tradition instead of being thoughtful.”

He recalled an early case of a drunken teenager who broke part of a monument in a cemetery and was charged. Years later, he had “completely atoned” and was starting to apply for jobs, Quinn said. “He did something stupid as a kid … and he said: ‘I can’t move on.’” The editor granted his request, removed his name and presented it to his colleagues as a model for similar cases.

There was some initial internal resistance, but eventually Quinn and his staff came up with general parameters: they would not erase names in cases of violence, sex offenses, crimes against children or corruption. Police officers would be treated as public officials, so stories of their wrongdoing would remain. The incident typically had to be at least four years old, although the paper has made exceptions. Quinn did not want to have strict rules, since every case is different. The guiding question, he said, was: “What’s more valuable – this story remaining available to the public, or this person being able to move on?”