He said, "One of the ethical issues not mentioned in class this week but nonetheless crucial to OJ is the potential for libel. Because of the ever-present nature of archives in this new form of journalism, people whose names may have been cast in bad light eons ago don't appear to be cleared at all -- online. Journalism doesn't correct or retract archives."
For me after reading the 3 articles that he provided, I thought this is a non issue. I think the Slate said it best, "you may think reputation belongs to you, but it doesn't. It lives inside the heads of other people, and now inside Google. It's their possession. If you want to change it, do something to convince people and the Web that you aren't who they think you are."
It is not the job of times or any other news organization to go back to every single article and fix what at the time was printed was fact. If a person was charged with a crime but then charges were later dismissed, it does not change the fact that they were charged. That is the truth and going back to edit it so it doesn't show up in search engines would be changing history in a way.
I do think libel is an issue with online journalism but I feel that this is not libel. I feel that people are more likely to slander individuals online because most online publications do not have the same editing processes as print papers.
