The Volokh ConspiracyOpinion When is it okay to scrub embarrassing statements from a news story after it’s been published on the Web?

Volokh Conspiracy  "Peter Baker and Gardiner Harris of the New York Times reported on a “private session” between President Obama and a group of reporters and columnists about his administration’s response to recent terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino. As they explained:

The session with columnists was off the record, but the president’s remarks were recounted on Thursday by several people in the room after one of the writers, David Ignatius of The Washington Post, described some of the president’s thinking in a column without attributing it directly to Mr. Obama.

"As originally published, the article contained this passage:

In his meeting with the columnists, Mr. Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, and made clear that he plans to step up his public arguments. Republicans were telling Americans that he is not doing anything when he is doing a lot, he said.

"The Post’s Erik Wemple quoted this passage in a blog post last night, as didothers.

"Go to the article this morning, however, and the offending passage is gone, and there is no notation or other indication that the article is changed." . . .
Jonathan H. Adler teaches courses in constitutional, administrative, and environmental law at the Case Western University School of Law, where he is the inaugural Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation.