If you have a specific post you want to complain about, we're happy to look at it.

But it has always been TPM policy that any substantive change made to a post after its initial posting is noted. The only time changes aren't noted is in situations like a misspelling or grammatical mistake.

Well, I'm speaking of a trend, Andrew, but the post which finally sparked my posting comments and deciding to start a blog that might serve as The Horse's Mouth in regard to TPM was this post: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/ap_obama_more_about_speeches_t.php

And this comment, among others, was the only indication that the title of the post had changed:
"Thank you for changing the title to the post eric. Still negative of course, but it's better than it was." - http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/ap_obama_more_about_speeches_t.php#comment-2617573

I'll collect a list of blog entries here, Andrew, to let you see the trend for yourself and make it another blog post.

SolomonJ,

Thanks for your attention. I've reviewed your comments, and remain baffled by your concern. I thought I'd take the time to reconsider what you're writing,and include some links. TPM currently appears to only accept a limited number of HTML links, so I've extracted them as text.

Blogging Theory

When people are blogging, they can write their own titles. A blogger's job isn't to copy the news, nor repeat the titles; rather, they may be using the title of their blog to state their conclusion. Whether that conclusion is or isn't supported by "that article" or "that news link" isn't the issue. You may be correct that the title "changed"; but the blog spot isn't "the news," but a blog: Something that, rightly or wrongly, asserts a world view.

As to the specific link you're referencing, it is true that Obama is short [snipurl.com/20gyv ] of foreign policy experience because, by definition, Senators are not engaged in Article II-foreign policy issues; they are legislators.

Cited Text Does Not Warrant Concern About Changed Text

You appear to be concerned about text changing. Let's compare the AP article at TPM, with the copy that's posted at the blog:

Blog [ snipurl.com/20gyw ]

Aside from his vigorous opposition to the Iraq war, Obama spent more of his time on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on speeches and inspirational trips than on investigations and aggressive oversight. He was a junior senator with an agreeable manner who was just beginning to cut his teeth on foreign policy issues when he decided to run for president.

AP Article: [ snipurl.com/20gyy ] :

Aside from his vigorous opposition to the Iraq war, Obama spent more of his time on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on speeches and inspirational trips than on investigations and aggressive oversight. He was a junior senator with an agreeable manner who was just beginning to cut his teeth on foreign policy issues when he decided to run for president.

Shockingly, they match!

Cited Titles

The only difference is the conclusion: AP focused on

Barack Obama prefers cooperation abroad

Barack Obama's Foreign Affairs Work Focused on Human Rights, Poverty, High-Profile Trips

The Blogger:

"Report: Obama Short On Foreign Policy Experience"

Sweeping Assertion

Overall, it appears the issue isn't that there is a "trend" of something, but that you're not making your point by using this as an example. Let's go back to part of what you originally said,

"Without even the benefit of strike-out text being left (or the great benefit in a wiki of revision history) when a rewrite is done, in one fell swoop a blog writer here can make many of the commenters seem over the top, protesting text that no longer seems worthy of protest for later readers.

It appears, based on reading your comment above, and what was or wasn't "changed" in the example you cited, that you are "projecting":

A. You appear to be asserting that there is a "trend" of bloggers rewriting text, without citing an specific example that text has changed;

B. You appear to be overstating the example, suggesting that in one "swoop" someone did something, but you're not providing specifics to justify your assertion;

C. You're asserting that some sort of "trend" exists with bloggers making others appear "over the top," when, in fact, it appears you're still searching for examples for a theory of blogging;

D. You appear to be suggesting that someoone is "protesting text," when it appears you're the one who is protesting text, but the example you've cited doesn't support your position.

Evidence Mimatch

You may have a valid point. However, one of the examples you've linked to in no way is linked with any argument you've provided. There's not a showing that [a] the concerns you've raised in your commentary are match by [b] the example you've stated. You're leaving this up to the readers to wade through.

But let's get back to your original point, if I captured it correctly. It appears your view of blogging is that they
A. narrowly comment on "the original news article" and not stray; or
B. convince their conclusions about the subject of the report not to whether the blogger has or has a different view; or
C. narrowly comment on that report only in the narrow lane of the media's commentary, but not provide personal views, other analysis, or different conclusions about different subjects.

In this case, it appears your concern isn't that the blogger has a different view, but there's no a clear explanation:
- how that blogger arrived at that conclusion;
- why the blogger isn't keeping "their blog title" the same as the AP title; or
- that the blogger may be discussing their views on the original report, as opposed to commenting on the report in terms of the AP.

Blogging Theory

One view of blogging is that it doesn't narrowly stay in the lane of the article, but it comments on an issue, and independently arrives at conclusions which may or may not agree with the original report, other bloggers, or the media coverage of that. If you have a specific problem wtih the bloggers comments about that original report, that's one issue; if you have a concern that a blogger is misrepresenting a report or media coverage of that information, that's something else; however, if you're concern is that the blogger's title does not match the news media, then I suppose I'll have to ask the basic question: What is your view of blogs in terms of their purpose?

If you view blogging as something that can only repeat a news media title, then we don't need bloggers. If you view blogging as something that will only narrowly discuss an issue that the media raises, then we don't need bloggers. If you view bloggers as something that can only report on the article, and not reach different conclusions after reading other unmentioned articles, then that is something else.

Bloggers are not required to cite their sources, inform you the reader of how they reached their conclusion. Why? Because you as a reader refuse, when you respond, to do that. If you would like the bloggers to meet a standard of conduct, then I would encourage you to do what you expect others to do: Be specific, support your conclusion, and justify confidence that your "concern with a trend" is real.

At this juncture, I'm not clear what your real concern is. It doesn't appear your examples you've cited are linked with something that is a real trend. Even if it was, the way you've framed your argument, you've essentially done what you're accusing others of not doing: Making sweeping generalizations. You're allowed to do that. The question is whether you want to justify confidence in your sweeping generalazation; or whether you want to do what you're accusing others are doing. You're free to do what you want.