[meekrohprocess]

Well it's up to the paper, but personally, I support papers re-evaluating their positions on this sort of thing.

You'll still be able to find the old article on archive.org et al, but what a paper publishes today should reflect what it stands for today. If the paper was wrong or unfair, what is wrong with modifying or removing the coverage which is served today? Is that really worse than printing a "correction" paragraph at the end of the original article?

Maybe publishers could implement a sort of "timeline" feature which shows how the organization's understanding of an event changed over time. But today, I can't see anything wrong with a newspaper accepting petitions to modify outdated coverage.

[markdown]

> Well it's up to the paper

Leaving it up to the paper basically means the rich get to rewrite history but the poor don't.

[noitpmeder]

Unfortunately that's how the world currently works.