> Hence the edit restating that every single one of those is either well known or provable. But news organizations lie. All of them do and they do it on a rout

> Hence the edit restating that every single one of those is either well known or provable. But news organizations lie. All of them do and they do it on a routine basis. On the topic of your examples: 1. It appears that the article recognizes the normality in its last sentence, so this was corrected 2. I don't see anything in the Damore article (http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/15/technology/culture/james-damore-interview/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/15/technology/culture/james-dam...) that seemed to disagree with his memo unless I am missing a subtly. 3. This seems to be a failure to acknowledge and not a fabrication best I can tell (too difficult to find what disputes the original comment) These seems to be examples where CNN has corrected the stories quietly instead of issuing a retraction best I can tell which while I agree is annoying at least is ensuring the latest version of the article is as accurate as possible (including in "accuracy" intended tone here). How to best handle such corrections is hard.