I can't really see where this fits, so I've given it its own thread. And apologies to Andrew Pugh for lifiting such a big chunk, but I think he'll understand if he frequents our place:
From the Press Gazette: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp ... =49253&c=1
A Mail Online comment moderator was removed from his post for amending a reader's comment.
The issue was highlighted when reader Ray Pooley complained to the Press Complaints Commission that one of his comments had been altered by the moderator.
As part of a discussion among readers about the newspaper’s moderation of the comment thread, Pooley originally wrote: “And on an allegedly unmoderated thread. Par for the course on this forum unfortunately.”
But his comment was amended by the moderator following submission and was published as follows: “And on an allegedly unmoderated thread. Par for the course on this forum unfortunately. OF COURSE it’s moderated – you people are not responsible for any legal actions, the paper is… think before you ink”.
The complaint was resolved when the newspaper “explained that unfortunately the incident was the work of a new moderator who broke several rules by adding his own words to the end of the complainant’s comments”.
The website accepted this was “completely unacceptable” and said the moderator had been “removed from their post”.
“It had never happened before and the newspaper was confident it would not happen again,” said the PCC. “The newspaper apologised for the unfortunate sequence of events.”
I must admit I'd never thought of going to the PCC over amended comments, but this raises some interesting points about the degree to which the comments section is seen as part of the editorial content of the website, and to what extent the moderators are responsible.