I'm always shocked that anyone ever takes the Post seriously, but they're in a double whammy situation where (1) 90% of their content is sensationalist garbage and (2) most people seem unaware of this prior point. Which means they can spin up whatever shit and it'll get a lot of traction, way more than most other tabloids.
Is this satire?
In case not: The source didn't report it happening. Therefore no one needs to invent it, not even as a pretext for an invasive investigation.
This is justification for inventing an issue and then attributing it to them.
> It seems reasonable to think that if someone tells a reporter that he's upset that porn is being shared in group chats, that there's a good chance the level of usage is in fact greater.
It is not reasonable to start with a conclusion and then find any road possible to get there.
It's not clear if you're accusing the tribe or the reporter of backpedaling but neither happened. The reporter made a statement in the original article and repeated it verbatim in this article. It is closer to an opposite of backpedaling.
What happened to the journalistic motto: "if your mother says she loves you, check it out"? [1]
1: https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2003/if-your-mothe...
The reporters followup story reports on 1) his own original story and 2) how other news shops 'customized' [ed] the original story.
1) He repeated the original story.
2) He said what the downstream stories said.
"Lack of definitive evidence" is not what this is.
Then, the NyPost is the only media outlet to run a story of a laptop (recently verified by the FBI in court) containing incriminating evidence of corruption of one of the two leading candidates.