> But once it became the thing people rallied around, the news couldn't just backtrack and say "Yeah, this is cringe. Please ignore." Well firstly, why couldn'

> But once it became the thing people rallied around, the news couldn't just backtrack and say "Yeah, this is cringe. Please ignore." Well firstly, why couldn't they do that? And secondly, why would they do that? If/when they realized it turned out to be wrong, doesn't the story then become who got it wrong and why? Why did no media organization start asking those questions? But secondly it wasn't just the news corporations involved in this. People like Schiff, sitting on the powerful house intelligence committee, were coming out and saying they had "ample evidence" Trump had colluded with Putin. Of course this is a newsworthy thing to report on, but where is that evidence? Did Adam never have any, or is he now hiding it (maybe he's been blackmailed by Putin too?) Why did Mueller's investigation string out for years only to come out and say they found no evidence to substantiate the claim Trump or campaign conspired with Russians? Why was that never clarified that the investigation did not actually have any evidence yet? And why haven't any real journalists from actual news organizations seriously been looking into these things? Just really weird that there was this massive story that was front page news literally for years that pretty much got memory-holed overnight one day.