I'm not sure what the point of your comment is. Are you just picking a random anecdotal example to discredit the linked article using whataboutism? And if so do

I'm not sure what the point of your comment is. Are you just picking a random anecdotal example to discredit the linked article using whataboutism? And if so do you do this consistently with other sources? For example the New York Times very publicly pushed their 1619 Project, which had numerous factual problems and was written by an incredibly biased author. After it had widely circulated across our entire society, they quietly revised its content without issuing formal corrections with the same visibility their incorrect content was given (https://quillette.com/2020/09/19/down-the-1619-projects-memory-hole/ https://quillette.com/2020/09/19/down-the-1619-projects-memo...). The net impact of that falsehood seems much much larger than the example you've quoted. Should we dismiss the NYT outright? Or can we just agree that all sources provide value through their different perspectives, and we can reason about their content without needing to either attack or blindly accept the source?