Maybe I’m confused, but if the news hounds have trouble with the source, don’t they hold off on a story until they can confirm their information?
Sounds like the Times was eager to go with the story and hope it’s true. They are trying to bleed Sarah and give her the death of a thousand cuts. Can’t believe all this stuff that is being reported.
Basic fact checking *used* to be a part of Journalism, but when Journalism devolved into "Advocacy Journalism" (aka Propaganda slinging), such "quaint, archaic notions" were quickly disposed of (the end justifies the means)...
the infowarrior
The Times can retract the story, but the readers will remember the story, not the retraction.