The press across the board does a terrible job of printing retractions. I know that doesn't really excuse Krebs but most errors don't get corrected and those that do generally show up in a tiny column in the middle of the paper.
If you're Brian Krebs and are writing, editing and publishing this stuff yourself, I don't know that you'd have the bandwidth to be able to monitor and correct every new development in something you've written. The New Yorker has a staff of hundreds of fact checkers, lawyers and proof readers just to keep them out of court, and they too seem to have a difficult time with publishing corrections.
I'm not excusing either party, there are issues here that need to be resolved. But the expectation that any part of the press, be it publishing a physical newspaper or running a security blog, will spend much time paying attention to old stories for corrections doesn't match up with reality.
Wow, I didn't know that. If that's the case then Krebs is far beyond what 99% of large news outlets, magazines and other news sources bother to do. I was on the fence before about this but if that's the case, I'm fully on Krebs' side here.
If you're Brian Krebs and are writing, editing and publishing this stuff yourself, I don't know that you'd have the bandwidth to be able to monitor and correct every new development in something you've written. The New Yorker has a staff of hundreds of fact checkers, lawyers and proof readers just to keep them out of court, and they too seem to have a difficult time with publishing corrections.
I'm not excusing either party, there are issues here that need to be resolved. But the expectation that any part of the press, be it publishing a physical newspaper or running a security blog, will spend much time paying attention to old stories for corrections doesn't match up with reality.