Give ‘em hell.

Rather than leave the original content with a pointer to an update or a notice that there is a “corrected” version in another location, I have noticed several instances of articles being edited after the fact.

For a wire service such as AP, it puts the credibility of their member papers at risk. If a newspaper prints a story that is called into question and AP “stands behind” it, the member newspaper “stands behind it” as well. When AP undermines their member papers by editing content after the fact, it makes if difficult and possibly embarrassing for a paper to stand behind the content.

What is even worse is when a member paper (such as WaPo) publishes a story that is picked up and distributed by a wire service. If they go back and edit the story without notice, they have made a monkey out of the wire service and everyone using their content. It is, of course, an attempt to change history. An attempt to make it appear they never said what they said. There are ways of setting the record straight without pretending you never said what you said to begin with.

There are advantages to having a hard copy newspaper and archives on microfilm. With online content, history can be changed by simply editing history in the computer database. You can’t go back and change hardcopy that landed on thousands of doorsteps.

Newspapers and wire services should leave content at its original location and make a note of an updated version. Otherwise they risk completely losing the faith of not only their readers but also their member papers.

The new statement seems to go back to at least 12/17, since Flopping Aces cited some of its new language on that date (the claim that Jamil Hussein has worked “more recently at al-Khadra, another Baghdad district”).

“Curiouser and Curiouser.”