Ryan GrimVerified account

How would the update read? Sincere reply: the emails were authentic. The motivation of the hackers (presumably Russia) and the publisher (Wikileaks) are very interesting/newsworthy, but don't reflect on the emails themselves, right?

The update could read at the top that the emails were stolen, that US authorities find they were stolen by Russia and the source providing them was colluding with the Trump campaign- link to today's story. All true. So why not add for your readers' understanding?

who's going back and reading all those old stories? They're coming for the ACA right now as we speak. Updating old stories that arent being read doesn't seem kuje a good use of time. If there's some code that could do it, then I don't see why not

I assume passage of time does not mean you no longer care about accuracy and context of stories. A simple search can find the stories. Same update can be attached to all stories. Doesn't seem hard to me.

Penny for your thoughts Ryan

I'm open to the idea, but worry about setting a precedent that all old stories be updated not because they're inaccurate, but with new info. Should we go back and update all the Keystone stories with the news of the spill? Where does it end?

The Intercept, where I no longer work, might just as well add an "UPDATE: Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump. If more of these secrets had come out earlier, Democratic Party leaders might have rallied behind a nominee who was not so profoundly deficient and compromised." 2/2