4 ms·
Ok, then they can admit it on the article. What is published must not be purged. Write a big notice on the page: This article has been retracted because it doe
by dingo_bat 8y ago
Ok, then they can admit it on the article. What is published must not be purged. Write a big notice on the page:
This article has been retracted because it doesn't meet our standards.
Removing it so nobody can see it is just plain censorship and goes against the essence of journalism and human decency.
- danso 8y agoWell yes, retraction is the act of withdrawing something, so I guess you could consider it "censorship" or at least self-censorship.
- bearcobra 8y agoI'm curious if that kind of note would protect a publisher from potential legal liability, or if removing it is the only way to avoid that.
- huntedsnark 8y ago> just plain censorship Who are they censoring, themselves? The word "Censorship" has been so abused in the past few years it has ceased to have any real meaning in casual conversation. You can read their rationale for removing it rather than updating it here: https://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2018/04/12/601650762/npr-issues-rare-retraction https://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2018/04/12/601650762/... > Turpin said, "In order to fix the problems, we would have essentially had to construct a different story," a process that he said would have been "intellectually dishonest. There comes a point that you can't fix a story appropriately." He said the decision was not made lightly; "we believe strongly we don't want to disappear material for any reason if we can possibly keep from taking it down."
- burntwater 8y ago> What is published must not be purged. Why? Why must everything automatically stay in perpetuity? NPR owns the story. They paid to write it, they chose to publish it, they paid to put it online. The story is theirs. Why can't they do whatever they want with it?