I don't accept that rationale because it basically absolves everyone reading the story, including other news organizations, of any responsibility for thought in

I don't accept that rationale because it basically absolves everyone reading the story, including other news organizations, of any responsibility for thought in the re-reporting or reacting to stories. Especially in the case of a story like this that goes against all historical evidence and from the outset should have seemed highly unlikely to anyone who gave it even a moment's thought. I maintain that if nytimes owes anyone an apology for this story, so does everyone who accepted the nytimes' article. Both crimes were committed on the same amount of evidence. Re stating things emotionally, sorry. I get emotional in the presence of foolishness.