I'm reluctant to wade back into murky waters, especially as I have been known to get in over my head, but this coda to the Kurt Eichenwald saga is certainly intriguing.
Under threats (apparently!) from The New York Times legal department, Salon ran a lengthy, and somewhat weird, correction to Debbie Nathan's article on Eichenwald � and then chucked the article down the memory hole! I mean, even if there were serious problems with the piece, rather than disputed opinions and simple misunderstandings which probably 95% of Times readers shared (did you pick up from the original articles that Eichenwald never actually saw any images?), it's hard to justify ever completely disappearing an article once it's been published. If nothing else, shouldn't readers be allowed to see for themselves exactly how Nathan and Salon fucked up? (Of course, nothing ever really vanishes on the Internets, if you still want to read it).
Be sure to read some of the 158 letters reacting to the correction and the vanishing of the article. Those are some pissed offed Salonsters, and they raise some valid points, including about some subsequent Eichenwald comments that would seem to indicate that Nathan's argument, if not every one of her facts, was pretty spot on.
Of course, Salon has all but disappeared these letters too, removing the thread from its most active page despite its superior numbers. In fact, I don't think the above link appears anywhere on the site any more.
