Anyone else catch this interesting bit of revisionism at the NYT?

[Kelvin Mace]

If you go to this LBN post of an AP story at the NYT:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2693641

You find a story dated the 18th about the GOP torpedoing ethics reform.

Partisan Dispute Derails Ethics Reform
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 18, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats' hopes of starting off their control of the Senate with a far-reaching commitment to ethics reform received a painful jolt Wednesday, their ethics and lobbying legislation sidetracked by a dispute with Republicans.

Republicans voted against the motion to proceed because they were upset that Democrats were blocking an amendment, sponsored by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., that would have given the president authority, with the approval of Congress, to single out individual spending items in legislation for elimination....

However, if you click the link now, you get THIS story:

January 19, 2007
Ethics Bill Sails Through the Senate
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

The Senate, responding to voter frustration with corruption and special interest influence in Washington, on Thursday overwhelmingly approved far-reaching ethics and lobbying reform legislation.

Under the bill, passed 96-2, senators will give up gifts and free travel from lobbyists, pay more for travel on corporate jets and make themselves more accountable for the pet projects they insert into bills.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who made the bill his first initiative as head of the Senate, called it the ''most significant legislation in ethics and lobbying reform we've had in the history of this country."

Passage of the bill came a day after the measure appeared dead, the victim of a test of will between the two parties.

Now imagine someone, say DU, quoting the story and placing a link to document the story. A person goes there and finds a completely different story saying the opposite of the DU posting.

Yes, I know that further into the story it recaps the issue, but the short attention-span public and the Wingnutosphere generally don't go further than the headline and first graf.

[Demit]

1. er, aren't the dates a tipoff, that the story was updated?

[JackRiddler]

4. none whatever

Since the story is kept at an identical link, how is anyone clicking into it after the update to know that it was different the day before?

This is of course a problem with all sites. You can create a page under a given name, attract links, and later set up a completely different page at the same link. One would wish that comprehensive "authority" sites like AP or the Times would not revise stories at a given link without noting the history.

The history usually can be tracked via the google cache or the "wayback machine" showing older versions, but these are pretty much useless for pages that change constantly, and besides, one needs to know to even search for such a history to find it.

[Igel]

6. The problem is real.

And it's one reason why most citation formats for URL links say to include the date.

On the other hand, it would be very awkward if every time there was an update, however trivial, the URL changed.

It makes a lot of citations completely pointless and un-checkable; the only hope is that it was cached and can be retrieved. I think most people citing stories like this take a copy, either they download the page or grab a copy (I wouldn't trust the former, to be honest).

[JackRiddler]

7. oh it's a big problem

In citing copyrighted material by link, you run the danger the page will be revised, Winston Smith-style, or dropped altogether. In archiving it on your own server you run the danger of being accused of copyright violation, or of having people say they don't believe your citation is genuine (in effect accusing you of forgery). Is there a perfect solution? My preference is for a site like 911readingroom.org, where the original link is given alongside a full archive of the original article.

There's no particular way to enforce integrity on this issue. It's got unlimited potentials for danger. Fact is, the microfiched Times at the library from 1966 is genuine. You won't know that for sure about today's Times when you check back on it in 2020, however (or tomorrow!).

[Kelvin Mace]

11. A proper newspaper

would have an edit history. The URL would remain the same, but the edits would be documented at teh end of the story.

[Kelvin Mace]

10. Also

in the journalism texts I have read, revising a story without noting it has changed is a BIG no-no.

Stop and think about it for a second. This would be the equivalent of a newspaper changing its archives after publication, in essence going into every library in the land and changing the text of a story already printed without notice of correction.

This is SOP in Orwell's "1984", or Soviet era TASS, not a responsible, professional newspaper/wire service.

[Kelvin Mace]

9. I see them as two separate stories

If the reversal of the situation had happened within hours of first story, then they could update the story out there, as long as they CLEARLY marked the story as an update.

[Cocoa]

2. more a premature prediction than revisionism

note the dates.

[EFerrari]

5. Presstitutes are having it both ways. Dems can't get started AND

they have failed. Of course.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Wiki deals with this by keeping an edit history.

Internet media is different than print media. Rather obviously true, but our understanding of the differences is not complete yet, and your example illustrates one of the incomplete areas. Is the NYT not supposed to update their internet articles? Should they provide a history of updates for the curious? The feature of stale links on the net has been well understood since the early years of the web, dealing with it is another story.

[Kelvin Mace]

8. I feel that each story that is put out

on any given day may be updated if facts change from the time the story was written which may affect the accuracy or context of the story. Since the essentially wrote a completely different story the next day, reflecting the reversal of the bill in question, it warrants a separate story.

I don't see it as nefarious, just sloppy and unprofessional, i.e. par for the media today.