Reporting on the evening of the next day, March 23, 2007, I find it interesting that the title of the article at the National Post now says Liberals Dog Day as Riding Scandal Resurfaces instead of Trash Dogs Day.
I think this shows that articles are constantly being edited and republished, so if someone says something is not contained within an article at a newspaper; its pretty easy for the paper to upload a new one that corrects the mistake instantly. Then how do you prove something was missing or added after the fact? This could be an interesting ethical dilemna when papers move to a completely online format. There will not be 1000’s of papers in print to that show something was there that shouldn’t be there, or someting was missing. Many people may read an incorrect online version before it is fixed.
The aggregator doesn’t lie though… the google aggregator still reads the first few lines of the article when it was first published as “Trash Dogs Day” as opposed to the new edited headline from today. I suppose this means commerical online newspapers must pay the closest attention to the initial headline and paragraphs that are read by the aggregators. Would you expect an apology from the paper if they the fixed faulty information quickly, but people still saw the incorrect version? I know newspapers that publish in print apologize for incorrect information.
I don’t think there is a problem with the new headline either or the old one in this situation. …. it was just interesting to consider. What if it was a really big change and something was really wrong?
PS: Yes…I know you can print it or take a screen shot like I did, but I rarely use either of these options.