On Wednesday, I wrote a brief post on ACORN’s lawsuit against those who made and distributed the now-infamous undercover videotapes of ACORN staff. In the post, I linked to a Washington Post story on the suit. Today, however, I learned that the story at that link is no longer the same as when I made my initial Wednesday post. As noted in an early comment on my post, the original story included the following:
In an exclusive interview with the Post, founder Wade Rathke said conservative claims that ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is a “criminal enterprise” that misuses federal and donor funds for political ends — a claim contained in a report by House Republicans — are a “complete fabrication.” He said exaggeration and conjecture about the group are being passed off daily on cable television and web-site blogs as documented fact.“It’s balderdash on top of poppycock,” said Rathke, who was forced out last year amid an embezzlement scandal involving his brother.
Portions from this passage no longer appear in the story as it now appears on the Post website. Now the relevant portion of the story simply reads:
Meanwhile, the departed founder of ACORN said many of the accusations about the group are distortions meant to undermine President Obama and other Democrats.In an interview, Rathke said conservative claims that ACORN is a “criminal enterprise” that misuses federal and donor funds for political ends — an allegation contained in a report by House Republicans — are a “complete fabrication.” He said exaggeration and conjecture about the group are being passed off daily on cable television and blogs as documented fact.
Missing are the reference to the “embezzlement scandal” or the colorful quote. Gone as well is the mention of an “exclusive” interview. Yet there is no acknowledgment anywhere in the story that it was edited.
So, the Washington Post published a story on its website, revised the story to omit details that appeared in the relevant piece, and yet did not disclose these facts to the Post‘s online readers. Isn’t this a problem? There may well have been valid reasons for revising the story. Perhaps an editor thought the story got relevant facts wrong or concluded reference to the embezzlement scandal was unfair. Whatever the reason for the change, the Post should have disclosed that changes were made and that it had decided to excise information included in the original story.
This is not the first time I’ve noticed the web site of a prominent news organization failing to disclose that it had edited the web-based version of a story after initial publication. The NYT, for example, did it when reporting on the Administration’s decision to abandon a planned missile defense of Poland and the Czech Republic, as I noted in an update to this post. Is this now common practice? If so, it seems to be a major failing. Responsible bloggers routinely disclose anything more than the most minor stylistic and typographical revisions to published posts. I would think newspaper websites could do the same. Indeed, shouldn’t newspapers at least match the disclosure norms observed by bloggers? After all, they’re the real journalists.
conlaw2 says:
I’ve seen the NYT do this before. To me, it looks like the newspapers are rushing to break news and in so doing they encourage the writers to shoot from the hip. Mostly it is the case as you noticed, where an article goes from being a sum of quotes and facts, to being more organized and readable. I don’t think it is necessary to inform readers if the original article was not wrong or misleading. No different than having two articles in the newspaper on the same issue by the same writer on back-to-back days.
September 25, 2009, 4:44 pmSuzy says:
I agree. Once you’ve published it out there, it’s out there. On the local newspaper site I frequent, even if a story is developing rapidly throughout the day, they usually attach a note indicating that this is a developing story, and that this article is an updated version of the earlier story published at [date/time].
September 25, 2009, 4:45 pmShelbyC says:
News based web sites like cnn.com do this as a matter of general practice and have for years. It seems a little less natural for newspaper web sites, because we think of a newspaper article as a “static” thing.
September 25, 2009, 4:45 pmtroll_dc2 says:
I’ve seen Post stories on the Internet that look different when they hit print; then the on-line paper replaces the earlier version with the later one. It would be good if it kept the earlier one as well, but that’s life.
September 25, 2009, 4:47 pmrarango says:
While the practice smells bad to me, they arent doing anything the congress critters do when they revise and extend their oral commentary in speeches and hearings for the written record.
September 25, 2009, 4:56 pmDavid Welker says:
I imagine they don’t mention updates for aesthetic reasons.
Whether I think it is proper or not would depend on how important the change was.
September 25, 2009, 4:56 pmmarkv says:
I have seen this happen all too often on the internet, both from news sites and campaign sites. Now I always PDF the article and save it on my computer. May seem tedious or unnecessary, but a good portion of my referenced articles during the last election cycle were either altered or removed from the web. It was worth the effort.
September 25, 2009, 5:00 pmTracy Johnson says:
“Who controls the past, controls the future, who controls the present, controls the past” – George Orwell’s 1984
- Inadvertently made the same quote on the first reference.
September 25, 2009, 5:01 pmJon Roland says:
It is common practice, and the remedy would be to post date/time stamps for “created” and “last modified”, but not all sites support that (yet). We might join in pressuring them to add the feature.
I don’t think we need to go as far as the Wikipedia-like revision history log. :)
September 25, 2009, 5:03 pmDon Cruse says:
This is one way in which Wikipedia is superior to the online newspaper.
On Wikipedia, although the main story evolves over time, you can always click back through a changelog and see any particular prior version. Each version has a permalink, so you can cite to a particular version with confidence that your readers will always see the same text you’re discussing. (Academics and judges seem to rarely actually use those permalinks when citing wikipedia, but that’s another story.)
There’s no aesthetic reason the NY Times or a newspaper of similar stature couldn’t institute the same thing for its online articles. As its own editors or authors make changes, those go into a changelog that readers can view or can cite directly. As a bonus, the main story text wouldn’t be littered with strikethroughs and insertions.
September 25, 2009, 5:10 pmNYC Esq. says:
How would anyone know whether the original article really wasn’t wrong or misleading, if the newspaper gives no explanation for the change?
September 25, 2009, 5:14 pmDisintelligentsia says:
What I find interesting is not the stuff that was eliminated, but what was added
There are no statements, in the original material or the redacted material, where the founder of ACORN related the “distortions” back to Obama and other Democrats.
It appears the changes generally are pro-ACORN. They negate the embezzlement charges and then deflect the actual criticism if ACORN into something that is mere political grist (as if it had no foundation). The change appeals to our base tribal instinct. They’re appealing to groupthink – if a person is a Democrat then their instinct is to doubt any source that attacks the group.
September 25, 2009, 5:32 pmconlaw2 says:
NYC I think you are missing the point, if the article is correct( if quotes are attributed to the right people and so forth) I don’t see a problem with offering people a better story, without their being a log of it, the color each writer adds is nice, but means little more than a font choice.
If your belief is that the NYT is hiding incorrect articles by editing them, then I agree, these changes should be noted. But as I understand that is not what prof. Adler is suggesting.
September 25, 2009, 5:37 pmBrian K says:
It appears the changes generally are pro-ACORN. They negate the embezzlement charges and then deflect the actual criticism if ACORN into something that is mere political grist (as if it had no foundation).
you mean to tell me the whole ACORN scandal is pure politics? you can actually say that with a straight face?
what is your opinion on the scooter libby investigation? or the CIA torture investigations. something tells me you think they have no foundation.
September 25, 2009, 5:39 pmArthurKirkland says:
Newspapers have published multiple daily editions — and revised, spiked or added stories from edition to edition — for decades, perhaps a century.
September 25, 2009, 5:50 pmDisintelligentsia says:
Brian K –
I presume you meant to say “you mean to tell me the whole ACORN scandal isn’t pure politics?”
The issue with ACORN is there are multiple criminal investigations of ACORN ongoing – by both D’s and R’s. Several ACORN employees have already been found guilty and more indictments will likely follow. Further, the founder’s brother apparently embezzled over $1,000,000.00 from ACORN and then there’s the recent video showing corruption. Is there a political angle? Almost certainly — ACORN is closely aligned with Obama and the Democrats so their political opponents will want to seize on this association. Each side attempts to get traction with whatever it can. However, my point was not whether or not it was political, but rather, the slant of the changes was pro-ACORN from a supposedly “neutral” news source and the writer putting words in the mouth of the ACORN founder. There are no quotes stating what the writer summarized him saying.
As to Libby and the CIA torture investigations. My beefs there would be that there was no question as to the criminality of what Libby did in “leaking” Plame’s name. He wasn’t convicted of that but of lying to the FBI about it. As to the torture investigation – I have no ultimate problem with an investigation being conducted as long as its above-the-board and not politicized. However, the fact that Holder did not even go so far as to read the memos that the prior investigators wrote (which did not support continued investigation) indicates a more political motive for the investigation. If something was illegal about their methods, then I say bring it to light and prosecute but if it’s a dog-and-pony show then I say don’t bother wasting government resources on it. Perhaps he should release the memos that stated there was nothing criminal in what was done and that could clear up whether his motives are pure or not.
September 25, 2009, 6:11 pmCurlyDave says:
I don’t think it is necessary to inform readers if the original article was not wrong or misleading.
I see a very strong reason to inform readers of each revision.
It has become commonplace to link to articles from “mainstream” sources because they have copyright based objections to copy and paste. So we link and then they change the story at the link.
It seems to me, this nullifies their copyright based objections to cut and paste. If the same link leads to two different stories, which one is copyrighted? I recognize they both can be copyrighted, but the link is, or should be, an unambiguous reference to a single item. They can’t both be copyrighted with the same unambiguous description.
September 25, 2009, 6:12 pmNewsreader says:
I used to live in a city where the early editions of BOTH major daily newspapers hit the news-stands before the bars closed.
Sometimes, eating “breakfast” at 3am, over the paper, I’d read some fascinating story.
Later, at home, I’d reread the same story —reliably delivered to my doorstep— and it’d be different!
WOW.
I don’t subscribe to any print papers anymore.
September 25, 2009, 7:44 pmChrisTS says:
I think the real ‘story,’ here, is that a paper which has been aiming more to the conservative readership changed a story so as to appeal (I assume) more to the liberal readership.
Or, is that the reason for the concern?
September 25, 2009, 8:09 pm24AheadDotCom says:
I’ve noticed that the AP updates stories if they get new info, and sometimes they’ll create a new story that has the new info at the top and the rest of the old story at the bottom.
And, the WaPo did something similar before the election (link, more on that reporter here).
September 25, 2009, 8:44 pmGeoff Capp says:
Reuters and AP both generally seem to tag updated stories with a summary of the changes, especially if the change was substantive (e.g., we said 30,000, but it was actually 3,000). The only time I’ve seen the NYT do anything similar is on spelling errors in proper names, as in this article on Carl Jung’s Red Book. Which is part of why I tend to prefer the wire services over the newspapers.
September 25, 2009, 9:11 pmmadawaskan says:
When you compare the omissions from The Washington Post particularly the edit of this-said Rathke, who was forced out last year amid an embezzlement scandal involving his brother and the example Jonathan Adler noticed at The New York Times-why is it that both of the edits make the story more favorable to Democrats?
Coincidence?
September 25, 2009, 9:30 pmHatlessHessian says:
I’m just a lowly middle class tax mule (one who pays out so the elites can seize my earnings and give it to pay off the lower class parasites). Please explain for me Mr. Rathke’s commentary:
“It’s balderdash on top of poppycock,” said Rathke
Is this some kind of secret trust-fund child language? Why is it I feel this amazing urge to raise my pinky finger when I hear those words? And is one required to wear white shoes before uttering such remarkable language?
September 25, 2009, 9:37 pmBrian K says:
Thanks for confirming my hypothesis! your choice of facts and interpretation were very interesting and revealing.
September 25, 2009, 10:02 pmBrian K says:
why is it that both of the edits make the story more favorable to Democrats?
Coincidence?
given the tone of postings since the election started, it’s mostly because if the story was changed to be more favorable to the republicans no one would deem it important enough to comment on.
September 25, 2009, 10:07 pmConstant says:
On Sept. 9-10 I noticed a mismatch between different versions of a single AP article which revealed both the liberal feelings of the reporter and the editorial effort to eliminate any evidence of such feelings. The three versions I saw started like so:
earliest (with feeling): “WASHINGTON (AP) — The nastiness of August reached from the nation’s town halls into the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday as President Barack Obama tried to move his health care plan forward….”
later (eliminating the feeling): “WASHINGTON (AP) — A South Carolina Republican lawmaker shouted “You lie” at President Barack Obama as he addressed Congress on Wednesday, prompting a GOP senator to call for an apology.”
last (factual update): “Democrats and Republicans alike are denouncing Rep. Joe Wilson for shouting “You lie” at President Barack Obama during his speech to Congress, an extraordinary breach of decorum for which the South Carolina Republican swiftly apologized.”
Apart from updating the content with additional developments, what can be clearly seen between the first and second versions is a removal of language that does more to express the reporter’s clearly very liberal feelings and interpretations than to report on observable events. Additionally, the title also changed between the second and third versions. The first title was false:
“Obama heckled by GOP during speech: ‘You lie!’ ”
This assigns to the entire GOP the actions of one man, so this is a great and partisan misrepresentation of what happened. The later title is true:
“Lawmakers denounce ‘You lie’ outburst at Obama”
I happen to have these quotes because at the time I emailed a friend about it.
September 25, 2009, 11:56 pmArthurKirkland says:
As one Conspirator is fond of observing, people can vote with their feet (or browsers).
Changes of the type described don’t bother me, but if a publisher doesn’t meet a reader’s standard in this regard, the reader is free to leave and not return.
For example, an author on this site today indicated that a mistake had been made concerning a law school affiliation, and changed the content but failed to tell readers what had been removed. Scrubbed, some might say. Or whitewashed.
For those whose exacting standards are not consistent with that type of editing . . . see ya.
September 26, 2009, 12:41 amWilliam Dix says:
The fact the Post does that is no surprise to me. And it’s something I’ve seen the Washington post do in the past. I’ve seen entire stories along with the associated comments disappear and then reappear with substantial changes.
And IMO it is a pretty sleazy way of doing edits.
Also let me observe that the few times I’ve posted comments on the NYTimes website opinion pieces I’ve found them to be a pretty inconsistent in their moderation practices. I’ve seen comments that where not in any way different from mine get approved while the comment I made sits in their moderation queue till it disappears.
September 26, 2009, 1:15 amyankee says:
The practice of disclosing every piddling change has always seemed a bit obsessive to me. It would be better if online news sources did more to disclose changes but I wouldn’t call their failure to do it a “major failing.”
September 27, 2009, 1:01 pmCash says:
I’m old enough to remember when Chicago and NYC newspapers had multiple editions over the course of a day.
I don’t recall ever reading a story in a later edition that explicitly noted any change from how the story ran earlier in the day. A later edition simply had what reporters then knew the story to be. What ran in the final edition was the paper’s best take on the story. And if the story disappeared over the course of the day because other news got more play, so be it.
Yeah, when the WaPo updated/edited the story, that great line by Rathke disappeared. Which is too bad.
But that’s how newspapers operate.
September 27, 2009, 5:11 pmneurodoc says:
Here’s a truly piddling change…An article in the NYT’s Sports Sunday section about “quality-control” coaches in the NFL uses a very slightly different photo illustration from the one the appears online. (Note, I did say “piddling” difference print vs online version.)
September 27, 2009, 11:27 pm
neurodoc says:
Oh yeah, for reasons unfathomable to me, I still can’t create a link after the website changes. (Yes, I have followed the suggestions of others as to how to go about it, but without success. Does the VC have a webmaster to address technical issues like trouble linking here, but not elsewhere?)
And what’s with the moderation thing, is that a new feature?
September 27, 2009, 11:30 pmAirbrushing Online Newspaper Articles After the Fact | Venture Chronicles says:
[...] So, the Washington Post published a story on its website, revised the story to omit details that appeared in the relevant piece, and yet did not disclose these facts to the Post’s online readers. Isn’t this a problem? There may well have been valid reasons for revising the story. Perhaps an editor thought the story got relevant facts wrong or concluded reference to the embezzlement scandal was unfair. Whatever the reason for the change, the Post should have disclosed that changes were made and that it had decided to excise information included in the original story.[From The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Revising Web-based Newspaper Articles Without Informing Rea...] [...]
September 28, 2009, 5:38 amThe Alarming Tendency for Newspapers to Alter the Record « The SiliconANGLE says:
[...] [From The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Revising Web-based Newspaper Articles Without Informing Rea...] [...]
September 28, 2009, 12:46 pmTurk Turon says:
About a year ago the New York Times did the same thing. They reported on their website that Sarah Palin’s husband was an ex-Army Special Forces sniper. This was part of the Time’s “CSI-Wasilla” team-coverage. It may still be available on Google. I’m not aware of any formal correction.
September 28, 2009, 4:09 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Neurodoc, can you make links at sites other than VC?
September 28, 2009, 4:27 pmStephen Goldstein says:
As others observe above, this has been common practice in print media.
In the old days, my town’s “morning” paper had at least three editions. The first hit the newsstands about 9:00pm though it carried the next day’s date. The second edition came out around midnight and the third, for morning commuters and home delivery around 6:00am.
Features and columns were the same across editions but “news” stories were changed, added and deleted as stories developed.
This is the stuff of some of the great newspaper-themed motion pictures . . . you know, “Stop the presses” and “Extra! Extra! Read all about it!”
If I recall correctly, the only time there would be mention of an earlier version was when there was a explicit correction of facts (in contrast to a different telling of the story) along the lines of “In earlier editions the get away car was described as a dark blue Oldsmobile.”
Point is that as handy as it is for an on-line site TO indicate when a piece has been updated, given the tradition in print, I don’t object when they DO NOT.
September 28, 2009, 5:42 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
All right, this is weird. In Firefox, Turk’s 4:09 is the last comment I see even if I clear the cache and refresh. In Explorer there are two more comments. Also, in Explorer the comments are numbered and in Firefox they are not.
September 28, 2009, 6:29 pmAirbrushing Online Newspaper Articles After the Fact says:
[...] [From The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Revising Web-based Newspaper Articles Without Informing Rea...] [...]
November 1, 2009, 6:52 pm