Now That NY Times Archive Is Online… People Wish They Could Forget The Past

from the so-what-do-you-do? dept

It’s interesting to hear that the New York Times gets approximately one request a day to delete an old article, because we get those requests at Techdirt as well (though, not nearly as often). In both cases, it’s often due to someone who is upset that, even if the old article was accurate at the time, it’s no longer the case any more — but Google still calls it up on searches. Clark Hoyt, the current Public Editor of the NY Times discusses the struggle the paper has about what to do in those circumstances. Traditionally, they’ve just said “sorry, we can’t do anything” to people. Now there are cases where they may add a correction or an additional note on incorrect information. There’s even a bizarre (and somewhat silly) suggestion that they should have their archives simply “forget” certain “less important” news.

However, what may be most odd is that the article does not include one of the most obvious way to deal with these issues: post a response from the person who feels wronged, to give their side. When people complain about old posts on Techdirt, assuming they’re factually accurate, we simply suggest that people put up a comment on the post explaining their side of the story. Of course, this response is quite similar to the new Google News comment feature that so many journalists seem up in arms about — fearing that it will simply be used for spin, PR and distortion. What they forget is that if such comments are clearly marked as coming from the biased party, people can take that into account, and it provides the additional info necessary for people to make a more informed decision. The NY Times piece also leaves out a second option: that the person can get themselves in the news again, and have the old stories disappear into the dark caverns of Google’s later page search results. In fact, that technique may be working for Allen Kraus, one of the guys used as an example in the NY Times piece. Thanks to this new NY Times piece, many of the links on Google appearing under his name are already about this particular story, rather than the old one he’s upset about.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: new york times

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Now That NY Times Archive Is Online… People Wish They Could Forget The Past”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
davidwr says:

Add a standard disclaimer

Add a standard disclaimer with “This archived article you are reading was accurate at the time of publication. It may or may no longer be accurate.”

If the article was not accurate at the time of publication and has been corrected, use this: “This archived article has been corrected from its original version. The version you are reading was accurate at the time of publication. It may or may no longer be accurate. *Click here* for previous versions.”

Previous versions, which have been officially corrected, should have a large warning at the very top saying the article contains inaccuracies and should not be relied upon, but that it is made available in the interest of not hiding the publisher’s mistakes.

Tish Grier (user link) says:

Google News = paper of record?

Could Google News comments feature be a way for it to usurp the title of “paper of record”? It tried to do that with the whole Google News search thing a little over a year ago (remember? they planned to archive about 200 years worth of news)

What newspapers could do–but would obviously cost money–would be to post updates at the top of articles with links to follow-up stories. So, anyone coming into an archived story could see that the story they came in on was either incomplete or simply that there’s more to it than the original report (the case with most stories)

The simple fact that Google doesn’t always pick up the most recent information on a person (or for a blog’s links, for that matter)is a bit of evidence that for all its automation, Google is hardly perfect.

Art Kavanagh says:

Search engine optimization

According to the piece, the Times is using “search engine optimization [which] pushes Times content to or near the top of search results, regardless of its importance”. Clearly there’s a price to be paid for that. Part of the price is the danger of making some readers angry.

I’m a bit puzzled by the suggestion in some of the comments that search engines ideally should produce the most recent information first. Surely, the aim is to give a higher place to the information that the searcher is likely to be looking for, regardless of whether it’s recent or not.

Brian (user link) says:


Starting or have a small business? and want more customers? check out a free site for uploading video ads for your business, they also have image uploads and a free link exchange as well. Web optimization is a must, don’t get left behind, The more sites you can link to the greater your market will be.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...