| “ | This is embarrassing @petersbeaumont’s 1st explanation of Norway attack http://bit.ly/p4K3dn disappears and replaced by http://bit.ly/oV62IB | |||
|
| “ | Pointed out by http://bit.ly/nVFo5i <<email to Peter Beaumont on “suspicion falls on Islamist militants”>> | |||
|
| “ | @media_bite You just look foolish by spamming @petersbeaumont, who knows vastly more on foreign affairs than genocide-deniers of @medialens. | |||
|
| “ | @OliverKamm Peters a big boy Oliver, the last thing I think he’d want is you trawling the net licking his arse | |||
|
| “ | @media_bite @OliverKamm The curiosity is that the change in the piece is not mentioned. Surely this would be normal Guardian/Observer policy | |||
|
| “ | @ejhchess Its understandable, tht speculation damages Guardian brand. Beaumont said piece was “not deleted but updated” http://bit.ly/ol5gyF | |||
|
| “ | @media_bite I don’t know about “understandable” – why not just acknowledge changes, seeing as people would notice them? | |||
|
| “ | @ejhchess Not really ‘changes’, two completely different articles. Wiped from memory. I’d say lots of tweets went the same way yesterday | |||
|
| “ | @media_bite If you click on URL for old piece, you get new one | |||
|
| “ | @ejhchess I know, new article has its own URL too | |||
|
| “ | @media_bite So it seems to me some sort of acknowledgement would be normal | |||
|
| “ | @ejhchess @media_bite I don’t work for Guardian/Observer: I just note bleak joke in demand for correction from org that denies Srebrenica. | |||
|
| “ | @OliverKamm @ejhchess I have no idea wht youre on about Oliver. What organisation? Demanding what correction? U work for Murdoch I thought? | |||
|
