I now have three separate copies of this post from the Clark campaign blog in my news aggregator. Why? Well, they’ve changed the language on the post at least three times that I can tell:
- Draft 1: “During the General’s recent trip to Washington D.C., Joshua Marshall over at the well-known Talking Points Memo did an interview enroute from Dulles Airport. This is the first time a blogger has interviewed a presidential candidate.”
- Draft 2: (after I pointed out this wasn’t true) “During the General’s recent trip to Washington D.C., Joshua Marshall over at the well-known Talking Points Memo did an interview enroute from Dulles Airport. This is the first time a blogger has interviewed Clark.”
- Draft 3: “During the General’s recent trip to Washington D.C., Joshua Marshall over at the well-known Talking Points Memo did an interview enroute from Dulles Airport. This is the first time a blogger has interviewed a presidential candidate face-to-face.”
It’s funny — in Tips for candidate weblogs, it doesn’t say anything about noting when the text of a post has been modified. I wonder why that is?
And wouldn’t it be great if this came up during this weekend’s BloggerCon panel on weblogs in presidential politics? All the players will be there. How about it Dave? We know where you stand, but this is a great topic for discussion. What (if any) responsibility do candidate sites have to acknowledge when the text of a post has changed? Where should we draw the line? And is the line different for a politician than it is for an individual? Why or why not?
Leave a Reply to AnonymousCancel reply