Posted by Jonathan Adler:
Revising Web-based Newspaper Articles Without Informing Readers:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_20-2009_09_26.shtml#1253910968
On Wednesday, I wrote a [1]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 [2]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 [3]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 [4]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.
References
1. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_20-2009_09_26.shtml#1253748981
2.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/23/AR2009092302285.html
3. http://volokh.com/posts/1253748981.shtml#653167
4. http://volokh.com/posts/1253193006.shtml
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
Volokh@lists.powerblogs.com
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
