Actually, that is not true. And even if that were true, it’s beside the point. Kind of like this article.
I’ve been praying for something like NewsDiffs ever since library school, when I’d come across an Article of Interest and then, later, pull it up again in order to share with someone else — only to discover that it had changed. Or had it? In fact, there was no way of knowing for sure, because for the most part online news sites don’t reliably archive anything. They could, and very easily, but in general they choose not to.
So the biggest problem that NewsDiffs solves is one of evolving stories — the kind where at first nobody knows anything about the situation and so reporters fill in their best guesses until gradually, over time, they learn more about the thing that happened and the people the thing that happened, happened to.
But it also provides an illuminating glimpse into how $#!++y at their jobs a lot of journalists are.
Which is why for every news article I read, I need to watch 2 Youtube videos of baby animals doing adorable things. And why, if the story is on the radio, I require about 6-8 reps of assorted Top 40 to cleanse my brain palate.