In the end, it doesn't matter whether this is accidental or not, people are sharing the most salacious headlines and those are often significantly undercut by the story beneath them even at the time of writing because they get selected for "engagement" and A-B tested or similar.
So circling back to the story we're discussing, the problem goes deeper than just people trying to ensure that they share only the most accurate stories, there are significant problems with the supply even from the most trusted outlets.
I think you're more guilty here than WaPo. You're choosing to frame this as a larger mistake than it was, calling it a "retraction" is both factually wrong (WaPo didn't call it that, they called it a correction), and misleading (the change doesn't affect the article's main point[0]).
I'll reiterate: the framing didn't change. The precise quotes changed, but they don't affect the framing, and WaPo didn't alter the framing. This is consistent with a correction. The article headline, using only quotes that Trump actually said, could still have been "Trump told investigator that 'you'll be praised' for finding that I 'Won by hundreds of thousands of votes'."
That's a headline supported by the both the intent, and the precise words of the actual call.
You're trying to reframe a correction of precise quotes as a retraction, or a completely misleading story on the part of Wapo. But that's you doing that. Like I said, the correction is a great excuse if you already wanted the story to be wrong, but that's entirely on you. Similarly, you're framing of this as a "fake quote", which implies that it was a fabrication, as opposed to, what the evidence points to, an first or possibly second hand account, from memory, further charges a reader of your editorialization. But that's entirely your framing (and your assumptions), not a fact. I can't tell if you're intending to point out your own cognitive bias, but yes, you are showing that you're guilty of holding trapped priors. You're not demonstrating that anyone else is.
Because that's generally how you reference things.
Do you think the point of the article was
1. Trump said these exact words.
2. Trump attempted to convince GA election officials to sway votes, by suggesting that they'd be rewarded for marking democratic ballots as fraudulent?
If 1, why was this important to people? If 2, how does the precise wording change impact the overall narrative?
You've changed a fuzzy and incoherent quote about looking for evidence that the vote was tampered with into a clear directive. This is central, or it wouldn't be the thing that everyone uses to reference the event.
And to be clear, I am specifically saying they're wrong about it being a "correction" instead of a retraction as well. They can call it what they like, but when the central quote that they based the narrative on is false, the whole thing collapses.
Trump is seemingly incapable of being clear, as your own quotes of him being incoherent establish:
- “When the right answer comes out, you’ll be praised.” - “whatever you can do, Frances, it would be — it’s a great thing. It’s an important thing for the country. So important. You’ve no idea. So important. And I very much appreciate it.”
In the end, it doesn't matter whether this is accidental or not, people are sharing the most salacious headlines and those are often significantly undercut by the story beneath them even at the time of writing because they get selected for "engagement" and A-B tested or similar.
So circling back to the story we're discussing, the problem goes deeper than just people trying to ensure that they share only the most accurate stories, there are significant problems with the supply even from the most trusted outlets.