I was just sent a link to NewsSniffer a new site which tracks changes to the BBC website and the Guardian and Independent. I assume it does it by comparing RSS feeds in some way. The intention is to "monitor corporate news organisations to uncover bias".
Well it's true that some items are amended after publication and some comments are removed. Looking through the examples offered there doesn't appear to be much that's sinister there. However as bias is often in the eye of the beholder I'm sure some conspiracy can be concocted if needs be.
I actually think it's a good idea and no news organisation should be worried about being held to account for changes made - usually it's for clarification or accuracy or of little consequence. And when it may be of some consequence news organisations should be prepared to explain.
There is a frequent confusion between censorship (the suppression of information) and editing (the prioritisation or choice of what to present). They could overlap - but usually don't.
It's a shame the site's owner isnt prepared to put his or her name to it.
(Update: He now has. Such is the power of this blog...)