I noticed something very odd in the retraction: "The original version of this article stated that Sloane has a son. Before publication, Sloane confirmed this d

I noticed something very odd in the retraction: "The original version of this article stated that Sloane has a son. Before publication, Sloane confirmed this detail to be true to The Atlantic’s fact-checking department. After publication, when a Washington Post media critic asked us about the accuracy of portions of the article, our fact-checking department reached out to Sloane to recheck certain details. Through her attorney, Sloane informed us that she does not, in fact, have a son. We independently corroborated that Sloane does not have a son." I really hope this is not how any fact checking organization works. It appears the fact check was to ask the person whether the fact was true. If this was relatively crucial fact, couldn't they ask for some kind of evidence? I'm truly astonished at how bad some media outlets can be.