The Daily Telegraph has taken down a blog by its Washington correspondent, Toby Harnden, after it generated a fiery debate that included some pretty strong abuse from readers.
Fortunately, one resourceful reader made a copy of the blog and many of the responses, which you can read here (the original blog is posted below the comments).
Before you do, some quick context: Harnden's blog told how he came to write a story about Saddam Hussein's hanging before the execution actually took place.
The story was headlined: "Humiliated and hooded, the tyrant faces his fate on a steel scaffold". The official pictures that came out soon after the event showed that Saddam was not in fact hooded - and there were other details that Harnden's pre-emptive piece had embroidered.
Harnden admitted in his blog that his article had not been his "finest hour" but also argued it was the inevitable result of the old media's deadline culture. "It was one of those tricky journalistic challenges when no matter how much you hedge and speculate, the reality will always mischievously diverge from the finely-turned piece one filed," he noted. "The situation with the Saddam hanging illustrated that "old media" difficulty of the fixed newspaper deadline and the complications of writing across time zones," he added.
This was a line of reasoning rejected by many readers - though some were sympathetic, it should be noted. However, the majority seemed to feel cheated that a reporter had made things up and irritated that he then sought to defend it.
What do you think about Harnden's blog? You can find his blog about a third of the way down on this link. The question is whether it is ever excusable for reporters to take liberties with the facts. Is his confession about how newspapers work in fact admirable?
And what of the Telegraph's decision to take the piece down? Many students of the blogosphere would argue that censorship is futile. Close down debate and you risk cutting off your own lifeblood - wiser perhaps to roll with the punches.
