Loading…
29
Shoutout to the Wayback Machine for catching a 'sources say' article from Tampa that quietly rewrote its own headline
I was about to share a story from a Tampa news site about a rent hike at a complex called Bayside Gardens, and something felt off so I pulled the original URL on web.archive.org. The first version named the property manager and had 4 named residents, then a day later both got scrubbed and replaced with 'sources say' plus a vague 'management group' with no name. That swap killed any way to check the claims, and the whole thing read like a press release after. Has anyone else started archiving links the second you see a story blow up, or am I just paranoid now?
1 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In1 Comment
wendy_lee484d ago
The part about scrubbing the names and swapping in "sources say" is what gets me. That is not a small edit, that is them taking out the stuff that could actually be checked. I feel for you because once a story gets big and then quietly changes like that, you start wondering what else got flipped without anyone saying a word. You are not paranoid, you are just paying attention. I have started saving links too when something feels fishy, mostly because I got burned once trusting a page I read the day before.
4