I just discovered some interesting Google results.  When I did a search on “British commander Iraq”  there was a CNN link to a story  British Army chief calls for Iraq pullout – CNN.com but when you click the link,  the headline reads:  Blair backs UK army chief on Iraq, 

but the Cached link has the original  headline: British Army chief calls for Iraq pullout 

This is the same story according to Google,  and the link , http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.general/index.html   compared to the Google Cache link  : cached link

So anybody returning to the CNN link will get a “new story”. And it IS definitely a totally different story.  A quick comparison of the “cached” version to the present story linked at the same point of the original reveals a totally redone and repurposed story.  The majority of the new story retains very little of the original,  but has clearly “edited” it and interspersed “new material”.   Am I understanding this correctly?  Google has preserved the “original” page in cache.  Is CNN caving here? 

I tend to think this is irresponsible journalism.  If this were a newspaper or magazine,  they would simply have to cover the “clarifications” as a new story.  To REPLACE the story with a totally different one is unethical journalism.  The Google Cached link to this story is rather revealing, I think.  And yes,  it certainly seems that there was pressure on CNN and no doubt other media. 

Maybe they do this regularly. I think it is a bad journalistic practice.