Comments on: Updating archives to protect the innocent

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:33:26 +0000

You should try that for Usenet.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:51:55 +0000

People have an insane idea as to how much effort this would take or the magnitude of what’s being suggested. This is obviously not something that comes up very often AT ALL. There is ZERO liability here, unless the original article was defamatory to begin with. It’s a freaking extra sentence a couple times a year, people, and it’s the respectable thing to do.

By: Ed

Ed — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:48:58 +0000

@Grimmy: “The smart thing to do is to link your related stories together so that someone can follow the path of the story to see the eventual outcome.”

And a good CMS/publishing system should provide that feature, allowing you to relate stories together in a way that makes it seamless, and automatic.

By: Grimmy

Grimmy — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:06:01 +0000

No updates. The person was charged with a crime at that point in time. A later acquittal does not change that fact.

You have to look at stories as a moment in time. At the time the story was published, it contained the facts available at that time.

The smart thing to do is to link your related stories together so that someone can follow the path of the story to see the eventual outcome.

By: Capt

Capt — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:15:06 +0000

I say no updates to the main story. Write a second story and add a link in the first to the update.

I believe strongly in a paper trail. Changing the original destroys that trail.

By: Mike Orren

Mike Orren — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:45:33 +0000

Glad to see my post sparked some debate — Seem to be some misconceptions here about what we do that I want to clear up.

Primary is this: We never alter old copy. We do one of two things: 1. Post a new story and link it to the old one. In our CMS, that automatically puts a related link to the new story, including the headline in the old; 2. Post no new story and just post an update line in the old.

Example of the latter.

Our stories are publicly timestamped twice. Once with the posting and again with the most recent update. When updated, the story gets kicked back to the various hubpages and/or homepage as if it was new. (Note we don’t mark updated if we’ve just fixed a typo)

Even though we’re all-digital, I come from a print background. I wrestled with some of the questions above, but in practice…

“My mindset as a developer/journalist would be to datestamp each story anyway, so as to justify the datedness of the original story, and then provide some sort of “related items” collection within the larger article as a sidebar to at least try and expose more recent coverage of the storyline.”

Pretty close to what we do.

“What if the media outlet doesn’t report an update through their main channel, so there’d be no new informaton to link?”

Link to (horrors!) another outlet or just post it as new reporting.

“1) What types of information need to be retroactively added to stories? Ok, so maybe an acquittal in a murder case is obvious, but what about not-so-serious things? “Johnson’s Baby Oil Might Cause Itchiness — UPDATE: No, it doesn’t.” “Local Shoe Store Nears Bankruptcy — UPDATE: They were bought out by Payless””

Actually, the biggest learning for us is how much this liberates you from posting endless inverted pyramid updates. So if the story is “Council to vote on x tonight” and it happens without controversy, SO much more efficient just to update old story with “They decided Y”.

“Yes, but I would argue that the fundamental dynamic has not changed.”

Go Google some names of acquitted accused in your area. Results will argue that the fundamental dynamic has turned upside down. Google search for “YourName” is now a national publication about you.

By: Brink

Brink — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:33:23 +0000

Darn near every single story on your website could be updated as condition change. How many people are you going to employ to continously update all 75,000 (and counting) stories in your archives so they are all “up to date?”

By: Gorman

Gorman — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:20:11 +0000

Doesn’t an organization open itself up from a liability standpoint once it starts doing this? An organization is bound to miss a story, and someone’s going to take them to court saying “They didn’t update the article involving me like they updated all these others, and it’s caused me irreparable harm.”

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:49:24 +0000

If the story needs to be updated within the same day, then updates are fine. For example, a fire is raging and initial reports have two dead. If during the same time frame that the fire is being fought a third body is found, then continue to add to the story. If, however, we’re talking about an arrest, and then three months later there is a trial that finds the person not guilty — a new story should be written that can link back to the first story, but both stories should stand alone.

By: Rocker

Rocker — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:46:49 +0000

This is obvious so I’m surprised nobody has pointed it out yet…the ability to read old stories that haven’t been updated is not new. Libraries have archived old newspapers forever, and those have long been available to the public (remember microfiches?) Are un-updated stories more accessible now via the net? Yes, but I would argue that the fundamental dynamic has not changed. And besides the practical issues involved with trying to update everything retroactively, something about going back and re-write the record makes me profoundly uncomfortable - I guess you could say from a historical/historian’s p.o.v. (not claiming to be a historian!).

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:26:29 +0000

Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies. Guidelines such as these could help: Updates could be considered upon request. The applicant should be otherwise relatively low-profile, not a corporation, celebrity, or other high-profile individual seeking publicity enhancement. The story would have to suggest the possibility of wrongdoing. And the applicant would have to provide official new information to the contrary, such as dropped charges, charges against someone else, an acquittal, etc. The news outlet could then make a brief note of, or link to, the new information as an update. These are only suggestions.

By: db

db — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:21:49 +0000

This could get very tricky to effectively implement.

1) What types of information need to be retroactively added to stories? Ok, so maybe an acquittal in a murder case is obvious, but what about not-so-serious things? “Johnson’s Baby Oil Might Cause Itchiness — UPDATE: No, it doesn’t.” “Local Shoe Store Nears Bankruptcy — UPDATE: They were bought out by Payless”

2) What about stories that are extensively covered? For example, some stations in the D.C. area probably cranked out a half-dozen stories a day for several weeks related to the sniper shootings; do they all need to be updated?

By: discreet_chaos

discreet_chaos — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 04:58:12 +0000

Seth’s comment brings up an interesting queston — What if the media outlet doesn’t report an update through their main channel, so there’d be no new informaton to link?

By: Seth Keever

Seth Keever — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 03:19:40 +0000

I think it should be updated in a web story, especially if the television counterpart updates the story on the air.

If the story isn’t furthered on television, the majority of the public won’t know or care. Most people will have forgotten about the case. But the Internet isn’t a linear medium like TV.

10 years from now, someone could be searching for that person and come across the story. They’ll find that this person was arrested/charged, and not know they’re actually guilty. In the reader’s mind, they’re guilty, and that’s their sole take-away from the article. The reader should be provided with all of the facts.

Even though it takes more time, to truly cover the story updates need to be posted. Even 3 months later.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 03:09:11 +0000

Nick: You’re not altering to past to add “UPDATE (6/18/08): Charges Dropped [LINK].” or “UPDATE (6/18/08): Meyers Acquitted [LINK].” or whatever to the top of the story.