I think it’s a close call. I understand Brit Hume’s point, and would agree if the issue were identification of the wrong person, for example. That “victim” deserves to have his or her name expunged from the news cycle.
In the case of the NY Daily News and Piers Morgan, however, deleting the history of their political embarrassment only diminishes the political conversation … for the next time something like this happens and people rush to judgment.
In the meantime, as we ponder this problem, I’m going back to my old habit of grabbing screenshots of Tweets, not relying on the Twitter link alone, because that link could disappear.
Yep. One of the drawbacks of the digital age is just how vulnerable and malleable news “reporting” actually is, even in retrospect.
The fact that you can have nearly unlimited “do-overs” removes a primary reason for accurate fact-checking in the first place. With dead-tree journalism, you had to live with your mistakes in public forever, which was a powerful motivation to seek accuracy. But now history itself can always be rewritten on the fly, so why care about getting it right in the first place?