> This is the state of things, huge errors in headline stories are retracted in the following issue with merely a line saying they were wrong.
I agree, this is the state of things for most newspapers (which I'm criticizing), but not, for example, for science journals.
> If transparency is your goal, the story calling them guilty should be reprinted with corrections noted.
Again, that would be sensible only if the entire archives were reprinted each day. There are economic limitations for print newspapers that make this infeasible. But if it were the case that print newspapers could feasibly re-printed their entire archives each day, then yes, I endorse them leaving the disclaimed erroneous story in those archives, to be re-printed each day.
That's not the same thing as re-printing the disclaimed erroneous story on the front page.
> >that all retracted stories (even those that defame no one) should be expunged from the online archives.
> Again, I do not wish the story expunged from online archives, and it does not appear NPR is doing anything like this. Removing it from their personal archive is a different matter.
Sorry I wasn't clear. When I write "online archives", I mean NPR's online archives. I am not talking about archive.org or similar.
> suspicious parties can still see their full error should they want to
I would agree that this was the case if the majority of internet users knew what archive.org is. In fact, I bet that less (probably much less) than 5% do. Thus they are effectively hiding the erroneous story from almost the entire readership.
I agree, this is the state of things for most newspapers (which I'm criticizing), but not, for example, for science journals.
> If transparency is your goal, the story calling them guilty should be reprinted with corrections noted.
Again, that would be sensible only if the entire archives were reprinted each day. There are economic limitations for print newspapers that make this infeasible. But if it were the case that print newspapers could feasibly re-printed their entire archives each day, then yes, I endorse them leaving the disclaimed erroneous story in those archives, to be re-printed each day.
That's not the same thing as re-printing the disclaimed erroneous story on the front page.
> >that all retracted stories (even those that defame no one) should be expunged from the online archives.
> Again, I do not wish the story expunged from online archives, and it does not appear NPR is doing anything like this. Removing it from their personal archive is a different matter.
Sorry I wasn't clear. When I write "online archives", I mean NPR's online archives. I am not talking about archive.org or similar.
> suspicious parties can still see their full error should they want to
I would agree that this was the case if the majority of internet users knew what archive.org is. In fact, I bet that less (probably much less) than 5% do. Thus they are effectively hiding the erroneous story from almost the entire readership.