Getting bamboozled from your source is one thing.

Having multiple people working as a team to scrub the mistake off the website in such a MINTRUTH way is something else entirely.

If ABC wanted to retract the story, they should ethically retract the story, not try to scrub it's existence off the internet. Also, they should have seriously consider burning their source so that same source doesn't bamboozle some other media outlet, (if in fact they are blaming their source and did not doctor the video in-house.)

Someone, maybe ABC news, maybe their source that they're still protecting altered the video to darken all the spectators in the foreground filming a barrel of gasoline being hit with tracer rounds downrange.

> Most journalists and editors do their best to provide good stories, but it just takes is a one person willing to bend the truth either because they were paid off, or to fit a personal agenda or because they know someone

> fact that they would post a news article that is so misleading just serves to convince many people that journalists really are lying to them.

How about that time that ABC news created a completely fictional Kurdish holocaust by doctoring a video of a machine gun shoot that happens twice a year near Knob Creek, Kentucky?

Did you know they had the journalistic integrity to retract the story after being caught red-handed, but only with a notice on Twitter? Then they scrubbed every URL about the story off their website and pointed the URLs to a generic 404 page.

> Rolling Stone used to have good reporting.

Are we talking about the "Gunshot Victims Left Waiting as Horse Dewormer Overdoses Overwhelm Oklahoma Hospitals, Doctor Says" story they never retracted, or further back with the retracted "A Rape on Campus" story where they finally did?