George Orwell would be proud!

Posted by observer | reply to this comment
October 30, 2008 2:00 pm

Does it matter whether the bills were redacted or not? At least the U-T has done some coverage of what the bills say -- the VOSD seems to just write time after time about how long it took to get the documents and how they don't say anything... I guess you guys are more interested in the redacted parts, which would explain the 15 posts with no news, because you can't SEE the redacted parts...

Posted by Larry | reply to this comment
October 30, 2008 2:23 pm

Some of you may recall a public scandal that was known as Watergate. Dirty tricks, underhanded tactics and illegal acts occur with some frequency in political campaigns. So in that instance, it wasn't the burglary of the Democratic headquarters that continued to dominate the headlines months after the break-in. The news was the coverup and how people reacted to the incident. No newspaper has ever won a Pulitzer Prize for writing a story about a burglary, but the Washington Post won one for covering the activities following the incident. My point is public officials' responses to incidents and issues are news and generally more significant than the original act. It provides a very public window into how they do think and do business. My congratulations to The Voice for continuing to shine the light on an organization gone very wrong.

Posted by Get A Clue | reply to this comment
October 30, 2008 3:18 pm

The problem isn't what the U-T did or didn't do. The problem is writers and editors using words like "unredacted or redacted" without knowing what they mean! The same applies to politicians at all levels and a lot of teachers. I challenge anyone to find where Shakespeare or Abraham Lincoln used the words unredacted or redacted even once! I rest my case, nolo contendre.

Posted by aztec69 | reply to this comment
October 30, 2008 6:28 pm

LOL.........UT busted!

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
October 31, 2008 9:14 pm

The SDUT has been redacting its archives for years. Stories simply vanish from the paper's search engine. However, I have discovered that the missing files are open to Google searches, so instead of using the SDUT's own archives search, I do a Google search for "San Diego Union Tribune" plus the words I want to search for. Please, VOSD, don't ever give in to the temptation to do the same thing.

Posted by Maura Larkins | reply to this comment
November 1, 2008 3:49 pm

I told you guys--there is no way they are going to give you that info before the election. They will push it off til after Tuesday and then when we see it we will say "What have we done!".

Posted by Christine | reply to this comment
November 2, 2008 11:28 am

Uh-Oh. Backtrack alert. There was a chart in today's (11/12) Voice of San Diego that showed the city's pension deficit spiking up to $2.87 billion. After a few hours, it was changed to $2.78 billion. There's no acknowledgement anywhere that the Web site changed the substance of its chart. You simply can't do that. Journalists, in order to maintain credibility, have to let readers know if they change anything of substance on their sites. That's a $90 million mistake -- that would re-open a rec center or two!

Posted by Andrea Smithson | reply to this comment
November 12, 2008 4:30 pm

Nice one. The correction has been noted. Just to be clear, fixing a typo is a bit different than recanting a claim in an archived piece of news. But it should have been noted right away. And it was appropriate for someone to mock us for it.

Posted by Scott Lewis | reply to this comment
November 12, 2008 4:50 pm

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.