Most Read: Opinions

direct signup

Today’s Opinions poll

Would you use an app that tells you the partisan affiliation of products you're considering buying?

Submit
Next
Review your answers and share

Join a Discussion

Weekly schedule, past shows

Erik Wemple
On Twitter E-mail |  On Twitter Follow |  On Facebook Fan |  RSS RSS Feed
Posted at 06:33 PM ET, 07/25/2011

Is HuffPo guilty of covert edits?

Huffington Post commentator Peter S. Goodman has mellowed a lot in the course of a few hours. Earlier in the day, he penned a screed slamming the Republicans for “acting like terrorists” in the debt negotiations. Yes, terrorists.”

Now it’s no terrorists. A scrubbed version of the same tract now merely questions the sanity of those Republicans: “How can any rational negotiation take place in the face of such a threat? If the Republicans are serious about following through, they are either ignorant about the workings of finance or insane.”


What happened here? Why would the Huffington Post, king of the Internet ethic hill, be stripping away key portions of a story without leaving a detailed explanation of what went down?

Oh, excuse the Erik Wemple Blog: There is an editor’s note, which reads: “EDITOR’S NOTE: This piece has been updated from its original version.”

Updated? Like, to include some breaking news or something? No, it’s been defanged, completely changed.

Oh, excuse the Erik Wemple Blog again. The editor’s note has been updated again, this time it’s more honest and blames readers: “EDITOR’S NOTE: An earlier version of this opinion piece employed terrorism as a metaphor — a metaphor that some readers appear to have taken literally. In this updated version, the language has been changed to address these concerns.”

An inquiry to Huffington Post spokesperson Mario Ruiz wasn’t immediately returned.

By  |  06:33 PM ET, 07/25/2011

 
Read what others are saying
     

    © 2011 The Washington Post Company