Memory Holes and the Internet (updated)

blamanj writes "As reporters and researchers depend more and more heavily on the Internet as a research tool, manipulation of the net becomes a serious problem. A recent Slashdot article discussed this in regard to the White House. Now, The Memory Hole has noticed that Time magazine has pulled an article by Bush, Sr. on why it was a bad idea to try and overthrow Saddam. How can we keep corporate America honest?" Update: 11/11 22:16 GMT by T : Declan McCullagh (former Time, Inc. employee, among other things) writes in with the non-conspiracy explanation for the change, below.

Declan writes "It is silly to claim that Bush Sr. and Scowcroft would strong-arm Time Inc. into removing an article from time.com -- when that article was an excerpt from their book that you can buy today from Amazon.com for $21.

Another explanation is more likely. And, yes, a quick search turns up a May 2003 article from Slate that debunks this rumor. It turns out that Time Inc. only had permission from the publisher to post the content for a limited time."

Comments

News from Over The Hill

[thelizman]

So...why is it even notable that they removed an article pertaining to more than a decade ago over a situation everyone in their right mind knows about? More retarded slashdot political-hack activism, -1

Re:The Excerpt

[mrseth]

I agree. Given what I've seen of his talents and intellectual capabilities, were his last name not Bush, he'd probably be known as "that asshole assistant manager down at the Tasty Freeze." I always thought it amusing that his administration fought so hard again UoM's affirmative action policy, when he benefitted tremendously from another form of affirmative action known as "legacy." There's NO WAY that idiot would've gotten into Yale or Harvard any other way. He only went Harvard business school because Texas A&M declined his application to their law school.

Yellow Journalism

[helix400]

Wow! Yellow journalism at its finest.

Two weeks ago, Slashdot posts a story trying to create a conspiracy theory that the White House is hiding material about Iraq from search engines. A few days later, someone actualy *asks* the White House, thus finding a perfectly reasonable explanation (they had 2 websites, both practically a copy of the other, so they didn't want people to see duplicates of the same article on search results).

Fast forward to today, and Slashdot does it again! Yay for yellow journalism! They reference an article, speculate on it, but refuse to check up on how true their conpiracy theories are. Even worse, they point to the 2 week old article by essentially saying "See! Look! It happened in past!", while almost completely ignoring Slashdot themselves already found an explanation for it.

Re:Archive.org

[espo812]

It's Orwellian.

I think not. Corporations can't put you in jail for things (courts and juries do that.) People can shop with a different company if they don't like one, they can't as easily pick and choose governments. The list goes on and on - in short: corporate actions do not ammount to a police state, unless the government is also the corporations (communism).

Re:You're late, boy

[Foofoobar]

Well believe it or not, even though we still let trolls like yourself in, we still consider this an intellectual forum. We just keep monkeys like yourself around to give us a few laughs every now and then :)

Re:The Excerpt

[JPelorat]

Might wanna put down the Pixie Stix now and go detox yourself with a nice walkie or something. =)

Re:The Excerpt

[JPelorat]

"Criminally evil". Uh huh. Thanks for playing.

Re:Archive.org

[Dick Faze]

Wow, facts with no source. This is a traditional liberal tactic. Go back to media manipulation, its worked better for you in the past. (Except recently: Let's see "The President is hiding his failed economic policies by directing us to the war in Iraq", oh, wait, the economy is recovering, uh, uh, "The President is hiding his failed Iraq policy by directing us to the growing economy")

Re:Yeah, right.

[allism]

Yes, indeed...it IS hypocritical to claim to be in favor of womens' rights and equality in the workplace but when someone sues you for sexual harassment, to lie through your teeth about your behavior.

GOD damned fucking HYPOCRITES!

Re:Yeah, right.

[Foofoobar]

Lol. If you say so... yep, if you can't see it then everyone must be blind. What an amazing use of logic. Truly you are a god among men. With a brain the size of yours, I'm amazed you aren't pounding nails with your forehead for a living. I suggest letting those scabs on your knuckles heal over before going out for another walk. :)