On 28/03/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
What sort of editorial oversight do you believe is in place for an interview in a normal publication? My understanding is that when a newspaper or magazine says you said something, then the fact-checker verifies that you said it, not that it is true.
If they bother with the fact checking.
The notions of the reliability of printed media in this thread are ridiculous in my experience.
As to the latter, there's no technical barrier for web publishers of any sort, blogs or magazines. The main protection is convention; in both realms it is customary to note changes on the page, and you risk ridicule if you don't do that. But the original text is not sacrosanct. To overcome this would it be sufficient in your eyes to cite from the Internet Archive or WebCite?
I do that when citing the words of organisations with a history of paid PR writing, e.g. on [[AdTI]].
- d.