Barring yet another shocking moment in a rollercoaster campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris will be the Democratic Party’s nominee for the 2024 presidential election.
Although Harris has been in the limelight as Vice President, the media attention towards her has increased substantially given that there’s a possibility she could become the 47th President of the United States.
Of course, when something is published on the internet, it can remain online indefinitely.
As deleting stories is generally frowned upon, editors may choose to amend a story years after initial publication if they no longer agree with the original copy – but in the case of Harris, many are trying to simply pretend their past repotting on Harris never existed in the first place.
Prominent lawyer John LeFevre discovered instances of this in relation to Vice President Harris.
In one instance, Axois reported that it was a myth that Kamala Harris was border czar, which they themselves referred to her as in multiple articles in 2021.
They’ve since updated their latest reporting denying that Harris is border czar by claiming their past reporting was wrong.
Another example, this time by GovTrack, noted Harris to be “the most left-leaning senator in 2019” – a statement which was removed as Harris’ “entire tenure in the senate showed a different story.”
Bizarrely, they didn’t seem to think telling this “different story” was important until right after Biden dropped out of the race.
Lastly, Democrats are desperate to claim that it’s “racist” to refer to Kamala Harris as a DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) hire.
But as it turns out, the White House already effectively called her that themselves.
And in that case, you can still access Biden saying that on the White House website.
The fact that mainstream media outlets are resorting to such desperation brings the media industry into disrepute. Clarifications should be used to correct misinformation, spellings, or add contextual information, rather than to change views of the past to appease the present.
There’s also a question of precedent. If media outlets are reviewing historical articles, shouldn’t they all be updated, rather than just concerning the Democrat nominee?
A rhetorical question, admittedly.
