> It was six years ago. It was retracted. The person responsible was fired and blacklisted from the industry. Shouldn't the company itself be "fired and blackl

> It was six years ago. It was retracted. The person responsible was fired and blacklisted from the industry. Shouldn't the company itself be "fired and blacklisted"? > What did people like you want to happen? See above. > Because EVERY news source has at least one skeleton like this in their closet. It's not their "closet". They did it INTENTIONALLY to push an agenda. Meaning it's a problem with the institution itself. They intentionally set out to create "news" where it didn't exist to further their agenda. They retracted once they got caught. I wonder if you would be so dismissive of the "sins" of other "news" institutions that don't align with your bias or agenda.