3 ms·

I'm sure old-media would love to be able to kill a story after it's published, they just didn't have the tech.

• anon1385 12y ago
  They can and do still remove stories from their websites: https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-have-resigned-from-telegraph https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-... >I researched the newspaper’s coverage of HSBC. I learnt that Harry Wilson, the admirable banking correspondent of the Telegraph, had published an online story about HSBC based on a report from a Hong Kong analyst who had claimed there was a ‘black hole’ in the HSBC accounts. This story was swiftly removed from the Telegraph website, even though there were no legal problems. When I asked HSBC whether the bank had complained about Wilson's article, or played any role in the decision to remove it, the bank declined to comment. Mr Wilson’s contemporaneous tweets referring to the story can be found here. The story itself, however, is no longer available on the website, as anybody trying to follow through the link can discover. Mr Wilson rather bravely raised this issue publicly at the ‘town hall meeting’ when Jason Seiken introduced himself to staff. He has since left the paper. Most reputable papers wouldn't do this with a new piece though. Opinion pieces seem to get removed at times, mainly when there is a backlash and the paper feels that a column crossed the line from controversial clickbait into something that's drawing too much heat (e.g. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/14/observer-editor-john-mulholland-withdraws-julie-burchill-column-accused-of-transphobia/ http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/14/observer-editor-john-mu... ).