Journalism voyeurs, or, “accuracy crusaders” as Steve Myers describes in his article, are part of a new web-based reading phenomenon. In his article, he discusses pieces of news that are changed or altered before they are published, but only after other writers/readers accept the original version as truth.
Perhaps the most notable example is that of the New York Times article that cited Executive Editor, Jill Abramson, as saying “In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion.”
In response to editorial changes like this, which, in print journalism, were undetected and arguably trivial, there are now entire sites dedicated to their appearance.
This kind of media transparency lends to credibility, but does it make “inhibit” journalism? At what point do the writer/editor have to retain a certain amount of obscurity to produce a finalized product without criticism?