NewsChain
Overview
Static URLs from the world's leading news websites often hold content that changes over time. Some organisations communicate when an article was last updated, but they don't show what changed - leaving readers unable to judge for themselves whether those changes are semantically meaningful. By monitoring and reviewing these edits, we've observed that articles can undergo significant overhaul between initial publication and their final form.
Does this matter?
In a word, yes.
We live in a world where algorithms push media to us at high volume. As consumers of trusted news services, we need to be better informed about what we're reading, and whether what we are reading is the same story that was published hours earlier. Providing insight into these changes is fundamental to delivering trustworthy journalism.
Is it bad?
Not necessarily - in some cases yes, but mostly no.
Without transparency around why changes have been made, early readers can be left with a very different impression of events compared to those who read the same article later. It is absolutely right that organisations make corrections. The vast majority of edits will be typos. Others may reflect legal obligations (such as the right to be forgotten), and some will be factual adjustments as new information is verified.
But the current practice of making these changes invisible to readers should not continue in its present form. In a world where nuance is weaponised, news providers have a responsibility to inform their audiences about the accuracy and evolution of the information they publish.
Here is a snapshot of some articles that have changed over time: