Given that it was kind of rainy when I woke up this morning, I was planning on doing a point-by-point rebuttal of "The Standard Times Declares War on Wareham" article...but it keeps changing.  I loaded the page at early this morning, then again around lunch, then yet again just a moment ago.  Each version was different.  This probably comes as no surprise to the folks on this board, but does anybody here track the changes that are being made?  If not, I can set up something to download the page on a regular interval and automatically track changes.  If possible, I'd like this thread to be a productive discussion of options for this situation, and not dive into name-calling - I can start another thread if anybody wants to vent about this stuff :)

Change Summary - morning version to lunch version (apologies if the formatting is off - my first try with bulleted lists on this site):

• Corrected a grammar error changing "Now, based on a six-minute recording of a 70-minute meeting, the Standard-Times, in all its twisted partisan logic, have labeled the audit a witch hunt" to "Now, based on a six-minute recording of a 70-minute meeting, the Standard-Times, in all its twisted partisan logic, has labeled the audit a witch hunt"


• Changed "Why else would they call for a recall of the selectmen before the results of the investigation are even released?" to "Why else would they seek a recall of the selectmen before the results of the investigation are even released?"  As I read into this, it's a pretty sinister change.  Saying that the S-T is "calling for" a recall is a factually correct statement, referring to the content of the editorial posted a couple of days ago.  Such an action is perfectly within the right of a newspaper, so long as it's clearly an editorial/opinion piece.  Saying that they are "seeking" a recall, though, is completely different.  It implies that the paper is actively taking steps to achieve those ends, which the paper should not be doing.  This change is only one word, but it is quite indicative of the agenda-pushing of which Slager is often accused.  As an aside, I've never actually seen a print version of his paper, so I don't know how clearly news and opinion is delineated, but this is obviously an opinion piece that he has written, and it's listed under "Front Page News" on the site.  That's just....sneaky.

Changes from lunch to just now:

• Added "And the Standard-Time is now engaging in a coordinated effort to discredit anyone involved in, or anyone who supports, this investigation into corruption."


• Added "Joyce's one-minute retirement before taking the interim fire chief job in Marion does little to support the Standard-Times' position."

How does he typically handle changes like this in his print version?  The fact that he is making these changes online (and has been doing it for some time) without any notification to the reader makes the site much more like a blog than a newspaper.  At this point, he really doesn't seem like much more than a blogger, but the problem is that he seems to be a fairly influential blogger, guiding the opinion of the uninformed.