OSDN | Our Network | Newsletters | Advertise | Shop     X 
Welcome to Slashdot Hardware SuSE News Sun Microsystems HP
 faq
 code
 awards
 journals
 subscribe
 older stuff
 rob's page
 preferences
 submit story
 advertising
 supporters
 past polls
 topics
 about
 bugs
 hof

Sections
apache
May 9
(2 recent)

apple
May 9
(7 recent)

askslashdot
May 9
(16 recent)

books
May 7
(1 recent)

bsd
May 8
(2 recent)

developers
May 9
(5 recent)

features
May 9
(1 recent)

interviews
May 9
(1 recent)

radio
Jun 29

science
May 9
(7 recent)

yro
May 9
(5 recent)

Online News Stories that Change Behind Your Back
The MediaPosted by Roblimo on Thursday May 09, @10:10AM
from the who-controls-the-present-controls-the-past dept.
Major news Web sites routinely rewrite stories after they are published, sometimes so heavily that they only bear a glancing resemblance what was posted earlier. This CNN/Money article about the penalty phase of the Microsoft trial is a prime example. What you see at the other end of the link is quite different from the story that first appeared at that URL. Even the headline and byline have changed. But CNN/Money managing editor Allen Wastler says there is nothing wrong with this practice, even though there is no indication on the site that the article was heavily modified after it first appeared.

To see how radically this story was changed after Slashdot linked to it, check this snapshot of the original, provided by Slashdot reader John Harrold.

The second iteration was more favorable -- or at least less unfavorable -- to Microsoft than the original, but Wastler denies any Microsoft involvement in the change. "Advertisers do not interfere with our content," he says, and notes that neither he nor any other CNN/Money editors were contacted by Microsoft about this story. He does say, though, that the later version was "more balanced" than the earlier one.

In my experience, Microsoft PR people are not capable of reacting to anything as quickly as this story changed, so the chance of a conspiracy here is about zero. As for Wastler's "more balanced" comment, that is his judgement, and you are free to agree or disagree with it. (I'm sure some Slashdot readers will say he is correct, and others will say he is not. Editorial decisions never please everyone.)

"Writethroughs" are Routine in Online News

In the news business, stories that change after the originals run are called "writethroughs." This practice originated with wire services like UPI, AP, and Reuters, who might send subscribing editors a story with the headline, "Office building on fire in downtown Cleveland," followed by one or two paragraphs of copy, with progressively longer versions of the same story coming through the wire, hour by hour, as reporters on the scene gather more information.

Wastler says CNN/Money readers look at his site "like a wire service" and expect stories to change over the course of a day. As an example, during our phone conversation he pointed me to a recently posted CNN/Money story with the headline, U.S. productivity soars, and noted that this story might be updated and expanded several times, so that "by the end of the day, it might become a magazine length feature."

Online News Association President Bruce Koon says, via email, "Writethroughs are very common nowadays among news sites, from MSNBC to CBSMarketWatch to CNN. Pretty standard practice nowadays to freshen headlines and leads as new developments occur. Some sites have labels such as 'update' or 'breaking news' but it varies. For top stories, I don't see that kind of labeling." In his day job, Koon is Executive News Editor for Knight Ridder Digital, so he ought to know.

I was not aware that this practice was routine in the online news business until a few days ago. Old-style wire service writethroughs were as specific as a rigorously kept programmer's changelog, right down to paragraph and line number. Maybe I'm naive, but if I am going to trust a news source, I expect that same level of care in story updates, or at least something like News.com's corrections page, which lets readers know what changes, if any, have been made to published stories before they are archived.

What's the Difference Between an Update and a Correction?

I doubt that most news site readers know the story they are seeing at the moment they read it is not necessarily the same as the story that was published earlier at the same URL -- unless we tell them. We run the risk of getting into the habit of "getting it first" at the expense of "getting it right" if we start thinking, "Well, we can fix it later, so let's go with what we have now even if it's not confirmed as carefully as we'd really like."

This is not the same as running a story that begins by saying something like, "An unconfirmed statement by...," followed by a later story that either confirms or denies the original statement, and it is not the same as an Update notice added to the original story when it is expanded or corrected. At CNN/Money, when a story is updated it gets a fresh time/date stamp, and Wastler says that's plenty. The problem with this is that someone reading the latest version who didn't see the previous one has no way to know that an earlier -- possibly incorrect -- version ever existed.

Columbia University journalism professor Sreenath Sreenivasan (AKA Sree) says, "You really need to make it clear to your readers if your stories have been changed or updated." He makes his students do that on Columbia's Web sites, even though some of them complain that commercial news sites, where many of them hope to work after graduation, wouldn't necessarily make them take this extra step.

Sree feels strongly that if a Web site changes a news story, for whatever reason, it should put, "'last updated at' or something like that" along with the original publication time and date.

More Analysis of the CNN/Money Story Example

Andrew Nachison, of the American Press Institute's Media Center, took a close look at our original CNN/Money example and gave us this analysis:

The Microsoft trial story on CNN looks like a typical write-thru of an earlier story, with new information from afternoon events. The morning's top news, that a Microsoft witness had trouble answering some questions, got bumped lower in the story as other witnesses testified later in the day. On its face, no big deal.

However, CNN did a disservice to its audience - especially the audience paying close attention to that particular story - by failing to explain the changes. A brief note would have helped, or a link to a journal of update notes for the story, so users - like newspaper wire editors - could, in a glance, understand how the story had changed from previous versions.

Something else would have helped CNN's audience: if CNN had an obvious, standard policy for publishing update notes that the audience expected and was used to.

What's most remarkable to me is that we're well into the digital publishing era but most digital news providers have yet to develop clear standards for how to handle updates and notes about updates so users are better informed. Publishers need to do this for two reasons: first, to better serve their audiences (which should translate into credibility with the audience) and second, to promote expectations and standards that audiences can come to expect of all credible news providers.

Errors that require corrections add a whole different level of challenge to digital publishing. Today it's virtually impossible to erase a mistake once it's published online. Web browsers call up cached versions stored on hard drives, some sites intentionally archive Web sites for historical research, and Internet service providers like AOL cache popular pages to speed service to customers. So AOL customers may hit a cached version of a story that contains errors corrected in a subsequent version that has yet to be cached by the AOL servers.

If online news publishers truly have their audience's best interests in mind then they should go out of their way to alert the audience to corrections and to make it clear when an update corrects previously published errors. They need to set the record straight.

University of Florida journalism professor Mindy McAdams has also looked at our example story. She says:

Updating the story in real time without noting that it has been changed: That's okay by me, in principle. But in this case, it's really very different.

I would be inclined to believe the Money.CNN folks who told you it's no big deal -- for them. In other words, I do NOT believe it's sneaky or anything like that.

But for the rest of the world (non-journalists), this MUST be very confusing!

I asked Wastler if CNN/Money had ever thought about archiving older story versions as new ones appeared, and linking from the new versions to the older, archived ones. He said, "The name of the game is speed, getting [stories] up on the site." He talked of the sheer number of stories a site like his publishes daily, and how loading any more work on his editorial staff, like moving old story versions to an archive, "would bog things down." I pointed out that this was something a simple script could do with a single "replace story/move old story to archive" click from an editor, and his reply was, "Well, I am not as technical as you... I don't know about that."

(This was not a hostile conversation. Wastler reads Slashdot now and then and likes it, and says, "My tech guys love Slashdot." Perhaps one of you Slashdot-reading CNN tech guys could talk to Wastler and other CNN editors about automatic story versioning. Wastler said that because of syndication deals and inbound links, his main concern was keeping a stable URL for each story even if went through a series of updates. This should not be hard to arrange.)

Future Directions for Online News

In a followup email, Bruce Koon said the idea of constant story updates on the Internet should not surprise anyone. His exact words:

How is the model different from TV or radio broadcast news? As news gets reported as it's happening, facts are going to change, new developments are happening. If anything, we've been trying to get newspapers away from this notion that they print once. The Internet is about continuous updates and reporting.

Also, unlike Slashdot or other new forms of information gathering and reporting, news audiences only go to a news site a few times a day to read what the latest news is. Most seem to know that the version of the story they're reading now is different from what they read before, just as they know the top of the hour report on the radio news may be different from what they heard two hours earlier.

Based on Koon's statement, the long term question seems to be whether Internet news evolution should be based on a broadcast model, with broadcast-style immediacy as its most important goal, or whether it should be based on a print model that assumes we are writing the "first rough draft of history" so that what we say today has archival significance tomorrow.

I think the two patterns are going to coexist, and rather than "convergence" we are going to see a gradual divergence between the two as "Internet news" simply becomes "news" instead of being seen as different or separate from other media. Watching how readers (viewers?) react to this change (assuming they notice it at all) over the next decade or so is going to be interesting.

A big part of the change is going to be figuring out how to maintain audience trust when it is so easy to digitally morph stories, pictures and almost anything else into states that are far different from their original ones. As Nachison points out, despite the apparently transitory nature of online news, nothing on the Internet ever quite goes away. It is all archived or cached somewhere once it gets into digital form, whether it was originally prepared for delivery on the Internet, on printed pages or for cable or over-the-air broadcast.

Professor Sreenivasan says, "We're all in the early days of this business. We need to evolve standards."

That we do. But is the "we" who evolves standards going to be the people who read (or view) the news or is "we" going to be the people who produce it? And that leads to another question: Where will we draw the line between reporters and readers/viewers, or will we even bother to differentiate between them, when PDAs with broadband wireless connections and built-in digital video cameras become common, everyday consumer items?

 

 
Slashdot Login
Nickname:

Password:

[ Create a new account ]

Related Links
· Slashdot linked to it
· this snapshot
· U.S. productivity soars
· Online News Association
· Knight Ridder Digital
· corrections page
· Sreenath Sreenivasan
· American Press Institute's Media Center
· Mindy McAdams
· This CNN/Money article
· More on The Media
· Also by Roblimo

Features

Some of Slashdot's more recent features include:

Review: Spiderman
The Computer and the Skateboard
A Walk Through the Gentoo Linux Install Process
Globalism, Corporatism and Open Source
The Handspring Treo in Real Life
Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos
Fair Software Installation

Update: 2002-05-08 by michael:

Past Features

<  Attack of the Clones Cut in UK | Microsoft's Goal, Security Through Obscurity?  >
Online News Stories that Change Behind Your Back | Login/Create an Account | Top | 265 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
This is not a newspaper (Score:2, Interesting)
by fluor2 on Thursday May 09, @10:13AM (#3490256)
(User #242824 Info | http://mp3.com/fluor)
Well the net is not a newspaper. And should not be compared to it. The news that is proven incorrect should be changed. The only question I ask is "Can we sue the news if they contain news that is proven incorrect?"
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Sometimes, I think we need a primer (Score:1)
by Software on Thursday May 09, @10:13AM (#3490264)
(User #179033 Info | http://www.southsalempc.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday February 21, @06:59PM)
on Newspeak. Plus maybe some nice two-way televisions, and we're all set.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
by JimPooley on Thursday May 09, @10:13AM (#3490265)
(User #150814 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
And this, kiddies, is why traditional media is best. You can't go back and change yesterday's newspapers.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
the only past is the past we tell you (Score:4, Insightful)
by Vodak on Thursday May 09, @10:14AM (#3490271)
(User #119225 Info | http://www.pewp.net/ | Last Journal: Monday March 25, @11:44AM)
story changing constantly without making note of it... sounds hella like 1984 to me.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
I dislike most new sources for this reason. (Score:2, Troll)
by danheskett on Thursday May 09, @10:15AM (#3490282)
(User #178529 Info | http://www.danheskett.com/)
I would recommend people stay away from main news sources, especially ones based on the AOL-TW or MS/NBC megaliths.

Because AOL is Evil [danheskett.com]

But seriously, CNN/MS*.* are unreliable news sources that cannot be trusted.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Not all news services... (Score:3, Informative)
by PoiBoy (brianNO@SPAMpoiholdings.com) on Thursday May 09, @10:15AM (#3490284)
(User #525770 Info)
If you subscribe to news wires such as Bloomberg, Reuters, Dow Jones, AP, etc. if a story is revised the title usually indicates that, and the first few paragraphs of the article mention what was changed from previous versions.

As far as websites, if you read, for example, the business news feeds on finance.yahoo.com you will see exactly the same thing.

I guess it's more just a matter of convenience for consumer-oriented websites to ignore the details.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
1984 reference yet again (Score:5, Interesting)
by SealBeater on Thursday May 09, @10:16AM (#3490287)
(User #143912 Info | http://www.sealbeater.com/)
Same thing happened in Orwell's 1984. Say what you want, mod me as you like,
but that was one of the central ideas of the book, news articles, etc, being
changed after the fact. If you went back and did any research, you would find
that the news agency/authority in charge of information was always right.
In more mundane terms, you really have to wonder about a news agency that
changes it's story and doesn't even post a retraction.

SealBeater
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:1984 reference yet again by Xenopax (Score:2) Thursday May 09, @10:36AM
  • Re:1984 reference yet again by jeffy124 (Score:2) Thursday May 09, @10:41AM
  • Re:1984 reference yet again by iangoldby (Score:2) Thursday May 09, @10:45AM
  • Re:1984 reference yet again by p3d0 (Score:1) Thursday May 09, @11:32AM
  • Just wait for DMCA by jmv (Score:2) Thursday May 09, @11:46AM
    • Re:1984 reference yet again (Score:4, Informative)
    by jibs on Thursday May 09, @12:06PM (#3491045)
    (User #117987 Info | http://pages.sbcglobal.net/labhead/)
    'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls
        the future: who controls the present controls the past.' And
        yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been
        altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to
        everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an
        unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality
        control', they called it: in Newspeak, 'doublethink'
          - George Orwell's "1984" http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

    Should History Record the Unvarnished Bush?
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A565 56-2002Apr15.html

    By Dana Milbank
    Tuesday, April 16, 2002; Page A17

    Last Tuesday was one for the presidential blooper reel.

    At a speech in Bridgeport, Conn., President Bush declared that he wanted each American to volunteer for "4,000 years," a variation of his usual call for "4,000 hours" that produced guffaws in the audience. Later, at a fundraiser, Bush bestowed a new name on Connecticut's lieutenant governor, Jodi Rell. "I appreciate Lieutenant Governor Judi Kell for being here," he said. "Great to see you again, Judi."

    Whatever, says Cathleen Hinsch, a spokeswoman for Rell. "You don't correct the president."

    But the White House does. Both goofs, and accompanying laughter, were stricken from the record -- deus ex machina -- in the official White House transcripts.

    A similar sanitizing occurred the day before, in Knoxville, Tenn., when Bush was interrupted by hecklers shouting about Enron and the counterterrorism campaign -- an unusual occurrence noted in news accounts of the speech. Federal News Service, a private organization, transcribed the boos, shouts and cheers, along with the president's struggle to deliver his lines:

    [PRESIDENT BUSH]: I've come to highlight what works, so others around the country, if they're interested in --

    MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: (Chanting.) (Inaudible.)

    PRESIDENT BUSH: -- if you're interested --

    MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: (Chanting.) (Inaudible.)

    PRESIDENT BUSH: -- if you're interested in doing what is right to encourage your citizens to become involved -- (chanting continues from the audience) -- and so I want to thank the city of Knoxville, Tennessee, for showing Americans -- (chanting continues from the audience) -- for showing Americans how best to help their communities. (Cheers, applause.)

    The official White House transcript made no mention of the hecklers or Bush's false starts.

    The opposition sees a Soviet-style move to airbrush infelicitous phrases. "These transcripts are done for near-term history as well as long-term history and it's a real problem if they start rewriting them," said Joe Lockhart, a former press secretary for President Bill Clinton. "The White House is rewriting history."

    Lockhart said the Clinton administration never cleaned up transcripts except to correct spelling, but veteran correspondents recall the practice occurring in both Democratic and GOP administrations. Lockhart's predecessor, Mike McCurry, said he gave White House stenographers "some leeway" to repair verbal abuses, including the task of "restoring 'g' to the English language" when Clinton's accent deleted the sound.

    On Capitol Hill, lawmakers routinely "revise and extend" their remarks in the Congressional Record.

    Still, lawmakers do not benefit from the sort of real-time foot-noting available to a president. In Missouri last month, Bush expressed his desire for "making the death tax permanent." The White House transcript placed an asterisk next to the blooper and a footnote saying "should read 'death tax repeal.' "

    In February, Bush baffled some listeners when he said he had spoken with the Japanese prime minister about "the devaluation issue" and told Japan's parliament the United States and Japan had been allies "for a century and a half." Aste

    Read the rest of this comment...

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
maybe slashdot should do this (Score:1, Interesting)
by Pave Low on Thursday May 09, @10:16AM (#3490291)
(User #566880 Info)
there have been countless stories that slashdot posted that are misleading, based on half-truth or are just outright false. Sometimes they update, sometimes they don't. It really seems to happen only when they feel like it.

So if they don't correct it, then readers have to read thru the comments so an astute comment can correct the "editor" incompetence.

Maybe slashdot should adopt the practice of updating the stories so it tells the truth. I see nothing wrong with news sites doing this. Better to get it right, than wrong.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Isn't this the point? (Score:1)
by 00_NOP on Thursday May 09, @10:18AM (#3490304)
(User #559413 Info)
Forget this particular story, and what we might think of the Evil Empire, but isn't this ability to change quickly the point of online media?

If I read a story I don't want to see the inaccurate copy of yesterday, I want the up to date and full story.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Of course its wrong (Score:2, Informative)
by dalassa on Thursday May 09, @10:19AM (#3490323)
(User #204012 Info)
Changning a story to give it a difference balance is if nothing else on the slightly scummy side.

If they want to add more information or change the view of the story than what they should do is:
1) Post a short summary while they still don't know all the facts.
2) On the same page, but clearly timestamped, the later facts or views.

This would allow news sites to keep their integrity and change their minds. Also, the internet is a fluid medium, the old rules of printing on paper don't apply. Dynamic stories probably take more effort but are in the end more satisfying.

At least I understand now why the offical citation for the internet includes the time downloaded to the closest second.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
This is fairly amusing... (Score:1, Insightful)
by gamorck (darkgamorck+SLASHDOTspammer@home.com) on Thursday May 09, @10:20AM (#3490326)
(User #151734 Info | http://www.jaylittle.com/)
Considering thats its being posted on a site that routinely engages in actions similar to these. I mean how many times have we caught the editors modding down hundreds of posts in single threads to -1 just because they were critical of the way things were down here at slashdot?

How many times have we seen articles mystically updated and changed here without any mention of the revision on the actual article? Now some of you may attempt to argue that slashdot isn't a real news site and isn't subject to the same standards as the likes of CNN and Foxnews - but I contend that this is not the case.

Slashdot provides "news" and information to hundreds of thousands of eager eyes on a daily basis. To deny this is to simply deny the effect that slashdot has on many members of the tech community. By default they are subject to the same standards no matter their origin. Taco can scream and whine all day about how this is "just his hobby" but as long as (a) hes getting paid for it and (b) society believes that people are responsible for their own actions - he is just as open for examination as everybody else.

Thanks for the laugh Roblimo - I guess you havent kept up with the slashdots frontpage lately huh? I mean they actually posted 6 Anti Microsoft stories in a SINGLE day on Monday. This is truly pathetic.

J
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:This is fairly amusing... by bwhaley (Score:2) Thursday May 09, @10:44AM
  • Re:This is fairly amusing... by evilpenguin (Score:1) Thursday May 09, @10:47AM
    • Read the Fucking FAQ by KilljoyAZ (Score:3) Thursday May 09, @11:02AM
    • Re:This is fairly amusing... by wiredog (Score:1) Thursday May 09, @11:06AM
      • Re:This is fairly amusing... (Score:4, Interesting)
      by nyet on Thursday May 09, @12:12PM (#3491087)
      (User #19118 Info | http://slashdot.org/...hold=-1&mode=nested&)
      People have already pointed you to the FAQ, but I figured I would paste this [slashdot.org] link of one of the worst thread bitchslappings.

      Even better, this thread is now locked so you can no longer post to it.

      There were MANY insightful comments in that thread, but the editors chose to -1 all of it anyway, in effect "revising" history; their excuse being that the thread was "offtopic". Interesting isn't it? Some of the *best* discussions on /. are offtopic, and many completely offtopic posts get rated 5's regularly. Why? Because we, as readers, find some offtopic posts interesting and informative. Whether an entire thread is offtopic or not is up to us. /.'s moderating goals should be to simply clear obvious abuses and hacking attempts, not to derail an entire thread out of spite.

      The reason *that* particular thread was bitchslapped is abundantly clear. Go read it for yourself, and decide.

      And if *THIS* post is deemed offtopic by the editors, you can bet on me losing whatever respect I had left for /.

      Sure, bitchslapping isn't OUTRIGHT censorship, but enough people assume (like the parent poster) that the editors don't mod on such a virulent, malicious scale that in effect, a -1 is almost as bad as real censorship, given the number of us that *DEPEND* on the readership's judgement on what is a good post and what isn't. If what /. does isn't at least double-think (and not outright censorship), it is, at best, very misleading and disengenous.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Re:This is fairly amusing... by jdavidb (Score:2) Thursday May 09, @11:09AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:This is fairly amusing... by evilpenguin (Score:1) Thursday May 09, @11:12AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:This is fairly amusing... by jdavidb (Score:1) Thursday May 09, @11:07AM
  • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
Sensationalism (Score:1, Offtopic)
by Renraku on Thursday May 09, @10:20AM (#3490327)
(User #518261 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
"MSN just posted a story saying that the U.S. is under nuclear attack! Check it out! " "Whoa, this story has convinced me to switch from 56k to DSL. It gave me 50 reasons." "You must be looking at the wrong link..Wait..you're right..50 reasons. Lets order DSL." "Alright."
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Oh really? (Score:3, Funny)
by toupsie on Thursday May 09, @10:20AM (#3490330)
(User #88295 Info | http://www.junkscience.com/)
Slashdot. Pot. Kettle. Black. Rinse. Repeat.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Oh really? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday May 09, @10:31AM
    • Re:Oh really? by anthony_dipierro (Score:2) Thursday May 09, @11:28AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Oh really? by pmz (Score:2) Thursday May 09, @11:08AM
Perhaps it because... (Score:1)
by csguy314 on Thursday May 09, @10:21AM (#3490340)
(User #559705 Info)
they want to get the article on as quickly as possible, so the skip over most of the editing.
But then go back over it and edit it more carefully and then repost it.
The real question is whether content changes. If all the words and the headline are different, it doesn't really matter, as long as the content and main points of the article remain the same.
That said, to be honest, I never read CNN. It's pretty useless for any real news. It's watered down for consumption of the american public. This is common knowledge to just about everyone who doesn't live in North America. Especially concerning touchy american foreign policy issues.
BBC is a lot better
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
morning evening (Score:1)
by Bubba-T on Thursday May 09, @10:22AM (#3490343)
(User #578601 Info)
Remember the days when there was a morning edition and and evening edition of a newspaper. I am sure some stores changed there also
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
TV vs Newspaper (Score:5, Insightful)
by jefferson on Thursday May 09, @10:23AM (#3490354)
(User #95937 Info | http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/jp/)
I can understand why CNN thinks this is no big deal. CNN was (and is) primarily a TV news station. On TV news, there is no archive or changelog for writethroughs: the copy gets rewritten, and the reporter or anchor reads it on the air. The only way you notice the changes is if you happened to see a previous version of the story earlier in the day.

CNN obviously sees the web as a translation of their TV news business, rather than as a translation of a print-news wire service business, so to them it seems fine! To them the web is a transient medium, like TV, not a fixed medium like print.

Of course, at first glance this seems fine, until linking of stories factors into the equation.

Of course, there are technological solutions to this, but getting CNN to adopt them could be a challenge, because it means converting them from a TV mindset to a print mindset.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Pet Peeves with News Services (Score:1)
by DarkBlack on Thursday May 09, @10:25AM (#3490362)
(User #5773 Info | http://darkblack.dhs.org)

I think that the service should be identified as a wire service if it is to be interpreted that way. Most newspapers should not edit their stories, for example.

CNN on the otherhand, updates their stories throughout the day on television, so it fits that that is how their website is done. I may believe that modifying their stories throughout the day to have a different slant is not ethical, but that is how it is done.

I personally feel that the Update notice that Slashdot occasionally does is refreshing. People make mistakes and it's nice to see that they fix them. It's also nice when they update the story to the latest news.

Please, News Services, let us know when you change a story. It really helps us keep up. with the latest developments. As for CNN, I hate having to re-read a whole article to see what has changed. I just want what is news.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
What's the problem? (Score:2)
by SpinyNorman (spiny_norman@mad.scientist.com) on Thursday May 09, @10:25AM (#3490363)
(User #33776 Info)
I don't see why this is an issue at all.

At the end of the day if a given source provide their take on a story then that's their take. Whether their first take, last take or whatever best matches your own views seems irrevelant.

If there any indication that a bews source changed it's story due to outside pressure than that would of course affect their credibility, but you'd be naieve not to think that there were biases, angles and prudent decisions built into the way any story is reported.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Until 9/11, CNN was different... (Score:5, Informative)
by Etcetera (cleaver@roLISPhan ... du minus language) on Thursday May 09, @10:25AM (#3490366)
(User #14711 Info | http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~cleaver/)

Prior to the immediately-updating news requirements caused by the 9/11 attacks, CNN had a very reasonable method for dealing with this.

The initial story created had an URL like http://www.cnn.com/2000/books/news/07/07/harrypott er.preps/ [cnn.com] while the next "revision" would have http://www.cnn.com/2000/books/news/07/07/harrypott er.preps.02/ [cnn.com] and so on...

A very good system IMO which allowed one to link to a specific version of an article, and allowed the reader to see the progress and revisions of a story if they were smart enough to notice the numbers at the top. As long as their internal database stayed up to date, the front page always linked to the latest version.

During and after 9/11, articles were updated so frequently that the major stories (on all news sites) became "newest information" pages rather than articles per-se. Since then, I've noticed hardly any articles posted using the old systems, with revisions now being made in place.

CNN please bring back the old method! It made sense and was a fair method of dealing with this issue!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
You know what they say about the Internet... (Score:2, Funny)
by Hydro-X on Thursday May 09, @10:26AM (#3490371)
(User #549998 Info | http://thirddimension.idlegames.com/~hydro/)
This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Attn: Slashdot (Score:1)
by larry bagina on Thursday May 09, @10:27AM (#3490375)
(User #561269 Info)
Pot. Kettle. Black.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Volatile (Score:1)
by noz on Thursday May 09, @10:27AM (#3490377)
(User #253073 Info)
I think the different medium (in comparison to print) is employed differently. Not to say that changing articles is a 'good' or 'acceptible' practice, personal opinions aside, but I don't think it's very academic or professional. Stories posted in a rush to be the first, and changed later for the inclusion of fact. The internet is a volatile and fresh medium, but this is a clear example of the lack of professionalism.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
I've seen slashdot do it! (Score:1)
by FearUncertaintyDoubt on Thursday May 09, @10:27AM (#3490378)
(User #578295 Info)
A few weeks back, I saw a story on slashdot posted with about 10 comments. Most of the comments were people yelling that this was a repeat story from a few days earlier. I refreshed a few minutes later and the whole story was gone. I'm not sure why this story was selected to be deleted when so many other reposts happen. I wished I had took a screen shot of the page.

But then again, slashdot steadfastly refuses to correct blatant errors, bad grammar, horrid spelling, botched acronyms (DCMA anyone?) in their story postings. And I don't want to get into editor comments in stories. Some things you wouldn't mind being "revised"...

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
So what's the problem, again? (Score:4, Insightful)
by Patman (pmgeahan.chartermi@net) on Thursday May 09, @10:28AM (#3490383)
(User #32745 Info)

I read both versions. The first was skewed heavily towards the performance of one witness in the trial.
The second was a much more well-reasoned discussion of the case as a whole vs. one tiny piece of it.

So what's the problem? The second story seems to be better-written and easier to read, and contains more information.

It's not like they changed the facts of the story; just the scope and the level of detail.

As an aside, does anyone else find it funny that a site that claims to be "News for Nerds", yet claims they shouldn't be handle to any journalistic standards, thinks that they have the right to call other news services on minor issues like this? At least those folks are trying.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
More disturbing... (Score:5, Insightful)
by Archie Steel (elie@charest.a2m@com) on Thursday May 09, @10:28AM (#3490385)
(User #539670 Info | http://archie.homelinux.net:8080/)
...are (admittedly controversial) articles that are posted on a major news web site, then taken off a few days later, like this one [1accesshost.com], or this other one [democrats.com]. This is a dangerous trend, and asks a sensitive question: why "remove" stories instead of putting out counter-arguments? Freedom of speech has it that you can say anything (almost: libel and slander are not acceptable), but anyone can challenge what you say by bringing their own arguments to the discussion. Too often, though, the american media silences alternative viewpoints by excluding them from the debate, so that the public doesn't even know they existe. Case in point: how come Chomsky hasn't been invited to present his views about the 9/11 events on television? If his arguments are so weak as the conservative pundits claim, why not simply try to prove him wrong on the air? Well, there's a good answer to that: they can't, and they know it. So they just ignore his existence altogether, and immediately try to discredit him (without ever challenging his arguments) whenever he is mentioned. Quite revealing...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Salon.com does it, too (Score:1)
by e40 on Thursday May 09, @10:28AM (#3490388)
(User #448424 Info)
This [salon.com] story originally had "Tivo" in the headline (but not in the body). Later in the day when I checked back, they had fixed it, but there is no mention of it in the body.

I fully support a ChangeLog of a standard format for news stories.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
In Oldspeak (Score:1, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09, @10:28AM (#3490390)
"The reporting of Big Brother's Order for the Day in the Times of December 3rd 1983 is extremely unsatisfactory and makes reference to nonexistent persons. Rewrite it in full and submit your draft to a higher authority before filing."
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Legal ramifications (Score:1)
by MdeG on Thursday May 09, @10:30AM (#3490400)
(User #209400 Info | http://www.degale.net/)
IANAL (clearly).
I wonder what the legal ramifications are: If a story is libellous on the first run, then changed on the second, is it still libel? I supposed its mitigated in its seriousness.
In Broadcasting - which the comparison is made with, a copy of each broadcast is legally required in many jurisdictions (for regulatory reasons as much as anything else). But in this case, not even that occurs; apart from cached or saved versions, there doesn't seem to be any way to ensure that there is an official archive available.
Even if there is no malice in this case, there may be (in others) an incentive to make such changes if there is no legally verifiable record.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Happens a lot in sport stories (Score:2)
by gambit3 on Thursday May 09, @10:31AM (#3490401)
(User #463693 Info)
While going through college, one of my classmates had a friend who was a sport reporter for a major wire news service, and he (the reporter) had to write the news as it was happening from TWO different perspectives, and the one that got used would depend on which team won.

It's a common practice in sport websites that provide live coverage, like the one I frequent most, Sportsline.com [sportsline.com] that the lead story is often written and rewritten during the course of a live game, depending on how it progresses. That's sometimes the price you have for near-real-time news.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Congratulations Roblimo and Thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
by gamorck (darkgamorck+SLASHDOTspammer@home.com) on Thursday May 09, @10:31AM (#3490402)
(User #151734 Info | http://www.jaylittle.com/)
For finally showing slashdot what it takes to create a real news story. While I do find it amusing that slashdot engages in the same practices that you seem to rebel against here, I think its actually quite impressive that:

(1) Actual research was done by a slashdot employee for this article. Roblimo actually took the time to call a CNN employee and allow them to confirm/deny the allegations at hand.

(2) Roblimo doesnt appear to jump to any "off the wall" conspiracy conclusions as some editors here have been known to do. He leaves that for the comment posters to do :-)

(3) The article is very balanced all in all. I think Roblimo is attempting to present both sides of the story and give the reader a chance to make up his own mind. Now that is true journalism.

In short thank your Roblimo for helping to raise the bar here at /. I can only hope that the other editors learn from your example and attempt to follow suit.

J
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Congratulations Roblimo and Thanks (Score:4, Insightful)
    by selan on Thursday May 09, @11:06AM (#3490616)
    (User #234261 Info | http://info.jpost.co...yBones/D00B14TP.HTML)
    I have to admit I don't understand why so many people consider /. to be "journalism".

    The majority of /. stories are links to news, features, rumors, innuendo, etc. originating elsewhere on the web. Some links are to legitimate news stories and others are less so. The "editors" merely post links that they find interesting and add their own purely subjective opinions (they've never claimed to be objective). Then we all comment and discuss amongst ourselves.

    The only /. stories that are actually original journalism are the features [slashdot.org], including this one by Roblimo and, yes, JonKatz's articles. So if it's real journalism you want, read JonKatz.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • hear hear by Lord Omlette (Score:2) Thursday May 09, @12:22PM
  • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
Proof every news site can be guilty... (Score:1)
by reparteeist (reparteeist.yahoo@com) on Thursday May 09, @10:32AM (#3490409)
(User #533894 Info)
This Slashdot story was originally about the Microsoft Trial.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
slashdot leads the pack (Score:1)
by tps12 on Thursday May 09, @10:33AM (#3490411)
(User #105590 Info | http://www.columbia.edu/~tps12/)
This is one area where slashdot does the Right Thing where other sites do not always. I find the "Updated" note useful and informative when a slashdot editor corrects one of the plentiful factual errors or broken links.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Even Slashdot is guilty of this (*GASP!*) (Score:2)
by pomakis (pomakis@pobox.com) on Thursday May 09, @10:34AM (#3490419)
(User #323200 Info | http://www.pobox.com/~pomakis/)
Slashdot does this fairly often, in fact. For example, the "James Doohan Not In A Coma and Likely To Survive [slashdot.org]" story was originally titled "James Doohan In A Coma And Not Likely To Survive", and was modified on-the-fly as more facts became available. Very confusing.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Even the headline and byline changed... (Score:1)
by stevenprentice (stevep@goco[ ].wsu.edu ['ugs' in gap]) on Thursday May 09, @10:37AM (#3490440)
(User #202455 Info)
If the headline and byline changed, wouldn't that make it a new story? What's the big deal? If I saw a short breaking news story on CNN and then went back an hour later and a story on the same topic with a different headline was much longer and more detailed, I would be grateful...not yelling conspiracy.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Newspapers Change (Score:4, Informative)
by maggard (maggard@mac.com) on Thursday May 09, @10:38AM (#3490448)
(User #5579 Info | http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday January 20, @07:03PM)
There seems to be this assumption that what I read in “Mytown Daily Tattler” is the same as you do - it isn’t.

Many papers (larger ones) have a series of runs that are printed at varying times. There are also often local editions. Thus I may get the early-am run and you might get the late morning one. Or I may get the downtown edition and you the suburban.

Any of these papers might vary from the others. The story “Sun Rises” might become “Sun Rises Brightly”. Or it might be replaced with “Grass Grows” or something else completely different.

No, what you’ve read or clipped out doesn’t magically go back and erase or rewrite itself but it is also quite possibly not the same as everyone else in the classroom / office / nursing home read.

I agree a versioning system would be great for newpspers. Heck, many (incl. large ones like the Boston Globe) lack stable URLS for daily stories for the move from current to archived.

I also respect that this additionial material would be likely disturb readers who prefer their news solid and immutable and would be unhappy to see the changes a story they’re reading has gone through. Seeing how the facts evolve and the wroters tone changes, perhaps dramatically.

And yes there is the problem of links pointing to stale versions of a story, the extra material to be stored, indexed, & archived, etc.

Versioning is a good idea and one I’ve heard brought up many times but to date the practice seems to follow the print style. Declare the last edition of a run the definitive one, the final version of a story the actual story.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Not the first time... (Score:3, Interesting)
by thumbtack (thumbtack@juno.com) on Thursday May 09, @10:39AM (#3490453)
(User #445103 Info | http://www.boycott-riaa.com/ | Last Journal: Monday May 06, @01:09PM)
The following took place on the tube, not the web: After the Space Shuttle Challenger blew up, killing the crew and school teacher Chirsta McAuliffe, I saw a news story several times on Headline News where a particular insurance company had issued a 1 Million Dollar policy to her, and would now have to pay off on it. It just so happened that my ex was the executive secretary to the president of the company. I spoke with her by phone shortly after seeing the story, and mentioned it to her. She totally freaked out, "How did you know that?" That's not public knowledge!". I told her I saw it on CNN Headline News, She made a rapid exit and promised she would call me back in a little while. The insurance company concentrated on business insurance and usually didn't handle individual policies. She called back about an hour later thanking me for the heads up. The story never appeared again. I asked her about it and all she would say was "It was handled."
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Huh!?! (Score:1)
by burnsy on Thursday May 09, @10:39AM (#3490457)
(User #563104 Info)
So these guys have enough technical sense to create a web page that...

Contains about 10 advertisments with some that rotate
A Netscape Nav bar
Drop's three cookies on to my harddrive

But they can't come up with a versioning app for their news stories?

Seem pretty clear that they don't want to be journalists, they just want to pump up page views.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Paperless office? (Score:1)
by Asprin on Thursday May 09, @10:40AM (#3490458)
(User #545477 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
I believe this is also why the paperless office hasn't evolved like we expected: Computers are great at keeping information current, but previous versions of the info are too easily discarded because data is centrally stored (everyone works on the SAME copy) and the electrons are easily erased and reused. Business really does need to track all those little changes in the middle because they also tell a story about how their documents evolve, and therefore the decisions that were made, and ultimately how their organization works.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
What's the deal? (Score:2, Informative)
by jdavidb on Thursday May 09, @10:43AM (#3490479)
(User #449077 Info | http://slashdot.org/~jdavidb/)

They do this on slashdot all the time. I kept the original article on slashdot about the September 11 attacks up for a few days because it had changed so much. The original seemed to express more shock than the final version.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
So that's why... (Score:1)
by PunchMonkey on Thursday May 09, @10:45AM (#3490490)
(User #261983 Info)
...Slashdot keeps reposting the same stories. Their "writethroughs", not reposts.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
slash? (Score:1)
by jeffy124 on Thursday May 09, @10:46AM (#3490501)
(User #453342 Info | http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday May 09, @12:48PM)
So says Roblimo:
Perhaps one of you Slashdot-reading CNN tech guys could talk to Wastler and other CNN editors about automatic story versioning

You trying to get CNN to run Slash [slashcode.com]?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
You mean some people read the same story again? (Score:1)
by mwood on Thursday May 09, @10:47AM (#3490505)
(User #25379 Info)
If they rewrite a story I've already read, I wouldn't know it because I don't read it again. If it has the same title, it's the same story. If you wanna change the story, please change the title or add "(revised)" or something.

In fact, the thing that really bugs me about CNN.Com is that they also change the title without changing the story. Several times a week I see a fresh title, plow through several screens, and then realize, "hey, I already read this." Close tab, start reading next story.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Versioning on the web (Score:2)
by lightray (tobin@splorg.org) on Thursday May 09, @10:49AM (#3490519)
(User #215185 Info | http://splorg.org/people/tobin/)
Although this problem is an especially serious one when it comes to journalism, it's a general problem with the WWW. Sometimes one wants to link to a specific version of a webpage or examine the changes that have made. One solution is to use RCS to keep track of page versions, and use a web server extension (such as an apache module [scu.edu.au]) that allows access to the changelog and to past versions. I would love to see this implemented widely...

I hacked up a little perl script [splorg.org] demonstrating the idea. Now each of my web pages can have a "this page contains version information" link to its changelog.

And then there's VMS which has versioning built into the filesystem...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
The articles are totally different (Score:1)
by HalB on Thursday May 09, @10:54AM (#3490549)
(User #127906 Info)
The articles linked to in this story are totally different articles. The only thing they share in common is the general topic of modularizing windows in the anti-trust case, and they both mention the Microsoft expert witness.

The original one is about the floundering of the Microsoft witness on the stand, with some footnotes on the case - no reference is made to RealNetworks.

The current one is about how RealNetworks figures into the Microsoft case with some footnotes of support from the Microsoft expert witness.

This isn't the question of a "minor edit" or "correction" It is a totally different story. If you ran diff on the two articles, you'd get basically entire copies of both articles as a result.

The current article would make a good followup to the original article. I'm more inclined to guess that it replaced the original article on accident rather intentionally because the articles are so different.

OTOH, replacing the original article with the current article nets a huge positive change in PR for Microsoft. While this in itself isn't proof of anything, it certainly merits asking questions given Microsoft's track record of strong-arm tactics.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
One who controls the past, controls the future... (Score:1)
by WetCat on Thursday May 09, @10:55AM (#3490552)
(User #558132 Info)
Orwell... 1994...
Or (not so grave) Stanislaw Lem.
Stanislaw Lem. Ekstelopedia Vestranda (1973)
(about an electronic book that changes itself while you read it...).
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
I fail to see what the big deal is. (Score:2, Insightful)
by saider on Thursday May 09, @10:55AM (#3490554)
(User #177166 Info)
The world changes and so does the news. If I read a story that is developing, I'd rather read a single cohesive document rather than an initial report followed by a truckload of corrections and additions. I read enough changelogs in my job, I really do not want to have to deal with it when I'm checking the market. Just give me the latest stuff. If I want an update, I can go back to my bookmark and get the update.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
It's not wrong, but it's not good (Score:2)
by iabervon on Thursday May 09, @10:55AM (#3490558)
(User #1971 Info | http://iabervon.org/~barkalow/ | Last Journal: Thursday March 21, @07:46PM)
Bit ironic to see on slashdot, where there are frequently (maybe twice a day) unmarked minor corrections to stories due to comments which point out problems (the URL doesn't work, the title has a typo, etc). Of course, more major updates do get marked as such, presumably so that readers will reread them.

First of all, there's no reason you can't fetch yourself a copy of a story in the morning, and then read it whenever you want, refer back to it on a later date, compare it with a later edition, etc. In fact, if anything prevented this, we wouldn't have this article. It's not like you can call up a newspaper and ask them to print you yesterday's paper. If you want to see yesterday's paper, you look at a copy produced by the company yesterday, achived by you or someone else. It's not the news people's job to write history; it's their job to write current events. As things change, it's not their job to tell you about the past.

Should they mark updates? Yes, but for the same reason that slashdot marks them: it is a disservice to people who read the original or people the original was unfavorable to if the new version is not marked as such, because people won't reread the article, and will not know about the new information.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
funnily enough (Score:2)
by K. on Thursday May 09, @10:57AM (#3490574)
(User #10774 Info | http://www.stunbunny.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday March 20, @11:48AM)
I had this same argument with a friend who used to be the editor for our national broadcaster's online news service [www.rte.ie]. He was very surprised that I considered it an issue, and thought that it was in fact an advantage of the web over traditional media, that you could seamlessly update and modify stories. He wasn't swayed by the 1984 comparison, or the point that he was deleting a valuable historical reference. But then he was working for an organisation that recorded over the Wanderly Wagon [google.com] archive tapes rather than buy new ones.

It's funny the way we're ending up with a de facto, distributed Big Brother. Life eh.
 
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Minor or major issue? (Score:2, Interesting)
by rusty0101 on Thursday May 09, @11:01AM (#3490585)
(User #565565 Info | http://www.beresourceful.net/ | Last Journal: Monday April 15, @04:20AM)
For people who's lives are not directly impacted by the stories that are reported, I don't see a problem with re-writes of stories. On the other hand, almost every story has a direct impact on someone.

Let's say that a writer for WSJ reports that Cisco has done major cuts to it's overhead in a story three days ago. If you invest in Cisco, this would peque your interest. You might even realize that the primary way companies have cut overhead is to get rid of either part of their development team, or part of their support team. Either solution may provide you the impetus to sell part of your stock, as they both lead you to the conclusion that they have made a short term profit decision that will negatively impact long term results.

A day later Cisco reports a major increase in profits as a result of their decision to cut overhead. The stock jumps 18% the next day.

You decide to go take a look at the story again, and find that now the URL returns a story by a different author with glowing reports of the profitability of the company.

If you sold your stock before the quarterly results posted, you took a major hit on the potential for your earnings for the stock. The new story does not support your decision. The decision to sell was yours, but it was guided by a story that you can't find anymore, and because of the newspaper's guidelines stating that it is ok to "revise without notification" stories on-line, you are left holding the bag, and even more skeptical of what you read online.

There are only two possible solutions to this that I can see. Either the online newspapers take responsibility and provide notification to the readers that the stories they may be relying upon have been updated, or some tool needs to be developed that will allow a user to flag stories for monitoring that will notify them if the story has been updated.

Unfortunately either will impact the newspaper's bandwidth.

Then again, I don't own stock in Cisco, (though I should get some) so at the moment such a story would not directly impact me.

-Rusty
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Explanation of confusion (Score:1)
by Tyreth on Thursday May 09, @11:01AM (#3490590)
(User #523822 Info)
This explains why when this story first appeared on slashdot I felt I was reading a totally different article to everyone else. I remember this one. now I can finally read the original :)

I agree that reports of changes to articles should be kept - preferably with a new URL so that pages linked to articles will remain static. Perhaps on the old page they could put a notice somewhere that an updated/revised edition of the news article is available. And on the new site list that changes have been made, along with a link to the changes/old article.

If this practice is common, then I think the general public should be made aware that this is how news sites work. I send stories off to people in e-mails...it would be irritating to find out that some of them had changed to say something different by the time it reached those people.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 12 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • (1) | 2 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
    		  Who does not trust enough will not be trusted. -- Lao Tsu
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2002 OSDN.
    [ home | awards | contribute story | older articles | OSDN | advertise | self serve ad system | about | terms of service | privacy | faq ]