A request to pull down a widely shared church scandal story has been rejected, with the editor saying there was no legal or editorial basis to erase it from the archive.
The woman at the centre of the dispute, identified as Eleanor, said the report had become painful to explain to her children and no longer reflected her life. She also said she had gone to the newsroom voluntarily and asked for the item to be aired.
The story concerned her storming a church to stop her husband from marrying another woman, a policewoman. It also carried a clip of her speaking to NTV about the incident.
Eleanor argued that the report should come down because she had moved on and there were no other interested parties pressing for it to remain online. The response was that the publication only removes material when there is factual misrepresentation or a legal reason to do so.
Digital Managing Editor Churchill Otieno said that if a story has developed over time, the proper response is a follow-up or a correction, not deletion of the original report. He said the newsroom’s policy and Kenyan law did not justify taking the item down.
The discussion also touched on the “right to be forgotten,” a principle recognised in the European Union after a May 13, 2014 ruling by the European Court of Justice. That ruling requires search engines such as Google to remove certain personal information judged to be “inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive,” but it applies only in EU countries.
Reader reaction in the piece leaned heavily against unpublishing the story. The published tally showed 57.8 per cent opposed to removal, 21 per cent in favour, and 21 per cent undecided.
Several readers said the internet does not forget and that Eleanor had invited the media to cover the episode. Others said the report remained a useful lesson about consequences, while a smaller group argued that the embarrassment to her and her children justified deletion.
One reader said the clip should stay because it captured a real event and should not be erased. Another called it a case study, while a different respondent said Eleanor should apologise publicly before asking for deletion.
Those who supported removal said the request should be treated as a withdrawal of consent and that the children were being unfairly exposed to an old family dispute. One reader said the clip should come down because it reminded Eleanor of an unpleasant past and humiliated her children.
The final position in the piece was that the takedown request would not be supported and the story would remain part of the archive.
One reader also noted that the woman had consented to publication three years earlier, a reference that placed the original episode in 2015.
