• morrowind@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is useful for pointing out if a news site is manipulating a narrative, but for other things, I think news site should get the privacy they need to make stealth edits.

    Like:

    More recently, the Times stealth-edited an article that originally listed “death” as one of six ways “you can still cancel your federal student loan debt.” Following the edit, the “death” section title was changed to a more opaque heading of “debt won’t carry on.”

    This was just poor wording. No reason sites shouldn’t have the peace of mind to change poor wording without being called out.

    • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      … What? No, if you need to edit poor wording you add a note establishing that the editor missed a section of poor wording, and that section has been revised.

      You want to do stealth edits? We call those first drafts, and they arent published. Want to hide your edit history? Edit before you post.

    • Mario_Dies.wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is actually a perfect example of why we need to archive these things. Don’t let corporations try to rewrite history wtf