[LINK] Alleged slander of Peter Gamble and Link archives
Richard.Chirgwin at informa.com.au
Thu Apr 8 18:15:02 EST 2004
> However, Tony suggests it is part of the 'historical record'. Record
> of what? That BRD forwarded info that has turned out be found false
> by the originators? I wouldn't think they would object to correcting
> the record, would they? It's only when things have been upheld that I
> think it would be legitimate to maintain it.
Don't make the mistake of thinking the historical record is in the "big
documents". The best knowledge we get of life in the time of Richard III is
from the Paston Letters; but that's not the sort of thing any "official
historian" would give value to.
Now, as to the historical record of >this< matter; Nine has removed the
reference, so Link's archival value is in this case greater than Nine's.
That an article defamed someone is regrettable, but the fact of it taking
place is now part of political history; should that history be diminished?
[Interestingly I can't find the Link link on the Wayback machine either!]
I would feel that a "correction" - or an acceptable statement of facts -
should only be posted if Peter Gamble agrees that such a posting would not
be used as a basis for further action.
The problem is that Link is in the weaker position, simply because it
doesn't have any resources for defense...
More information about the Link