> Why is any comment remotely construable as defending of the current administration automatically presumed to be made in bad faith?
First, because reputable media sources don't do "quiet retractions". The New York Times has a section for corrections: https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections
If you catch them just deleting a full article, you'll be a hero for the alt-right. They've been complaining about the Iraq war coverage for the last 18 years, and at some point even they start finding it a little odd that there are no more recent example of major errors for something supposedly evil incarnate.
More or less the same applies to other reputable sources.
I believe part of the misunderstanding here is that your accusation, if true, would be far more serious than you believe it to be. Extraordinary claims require evidence of the same magnitude. But because you consider journalists to be routinely lying, you don't see the need for any evidence.
I consider it reasonable to expect people mentioning such a scandal, which they would have read about in the last week or so, to remember one or two details from the story, such as the outlet it supposedly ran in, or the place where it happened.
With the name or a state or hospital, plus maybe the publisher, it should be easy to find someone on twitter or reddit mentioning it, or other outlets picking up on the story (and its eventual fate).
Instead, this thread is now four-deep with meta discussion, but nobody has found a link which would easily settle the matter.
I stand by my scepticism.