All in favor of detaining journalists or their significant others, raise your hands.

[TM99]

229. Because it is a valid point, that's why.

1) If they wanted to avoid redundancy a single mentioning of 'Greenwald said' would have sufficed not the several already there.
2) You have proof that no newspaper or news organization has ever, never published facts which could not be verified yet were printed? I am all ears. I can certainly provide a few where they did publish things that were not accurate.
3) So just because no retraction was demanded or given, it automatically makes it 'true'. Seriously?
4) Or was the updated version simply altered. There is a wonderful little NYT article about OWS, a bridge, and the first read through followed by an updated version which was a very different version of reality. I will let you source out that one on your own.

The only 'woo' being spewed is by those who do pretzel contortions of logic and reality to prove something that is not proven or provable at this time.