The major issue that occurred in the coverage of this story wasn’t that changes were made to the article after it had been published – although that is an issue for reader who were unaware of updates. The focus is on the fact that the Times did not promptly make these changes and failed to notify and give reasoning for such changes.

Wording such as “criminal inquiry” which was later changed to “security referral” along with other edits made between publication on Thursday night to final edits made and acknowledged on Sunday appear striking to readers. As a reader, accurate news is expected but technical errors are understanding in that news is reported as quickly as possible to keep the public well informed. However, if a reader is not notified about the nature of the change and the reasoning for it, they are just as improperly informed as they were when reading the original article.

I think news organizations who come across issues such as these with a story as vital as this one should publish an immediate notice online and a notice in the print copy of the paper the following day. The correct information should be readily available to readers in a new article, not simply corrected in one that was previously published. This will make it easier for readers to be aware of corrections and give news organizations a platform to explain their reasoning.

I agree with the reader who wrote to the Times following the confusion of information, demanding clarification in the following way:

1) please repost the original reporting;
2) provide an explanation as to how it made it to press and what was wrong.
3) what are you going to do to prevent such inaccurate bias in the future?
4) are you going to minimize using unnamed sources?

I think this speaks to how most – if not all – readers felt trying to follow the details of this story as articles were published.