Paranoiacs everywhere have a new app. In other news, there's one more clueless person [the Times public editor][*] who thinks the
Times is a paper of record. In other other news, publishing the news, and then publishing updates or corrections, isn't "transparency," whatever that means.
Quote:
THE NEW YORK TIMES is the closest thing we have in this country to a “newspaper of record.” A year ago I suggested that the paper should do a better job, therefore, of maintaining a record of the articles it publishes. Because of the swift changes wrought by the Internet, I observed, Times articles drift out into digital space in multiple versions. Some articles disappear altogether.
At the time, the newsroom’s management told me that establishing a stronger historical record by tracking changes in articles and keeping them in a comprehensive archive was not a priority. So much for the newspaper of record, I thought.
A year later, someone else has seized the initiative from The Times.
A Web site called NewsDiffs automatically “scrapes” the front page of NYTimes.com and then publishes a log of articles that appeared in multiple versions. A reader can compare the versions side by side to see changes in text and headline, complete with the markings showing the edits that have been made.
It’s as if The Times is being turned inside out, its inner workings exposed for all to see — a kind of forced transparency.
[*]
Who wants you to know, by the way, that those "CNN reports Anderson Cooper is straight" tweets bouncing around the Internet are not from the public editor.
Login
FAQ
Search
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.testycopyeditors.org/phpBB3/styles/subsilver2/imageset/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")