He initially refused to retract the initial posts he had made..
He made a later post that said the hacker was a former employee being indicted and that he (the hacker) had contacted the media and leaked fake info about the hack.
Problem is that Brian never made it clear that the hacker was his own source for all the previous posts.
It sounds like the journalist(?) was in a tough spot, because it sounds like he either had to out his source which which journalists don't seem to be keen on doing, or leave it up.
How many future potential sources are going to go to him or avoid him now?
yep.. but i think there is the side of journalist responsibility with the truth to consider as well..
The moment he was aware his source likely provided him with incorrect information he should had, at minimum, retracted his previous posts..
He did not necessarily had to share who the source was, but he could inform that new information came to light that made so he could not trust the information he based his posts on so he was retracting it..
He initially refused to retract the initial posts he had made..
He made a later post that said the hacker was a former employee being indicted and that he (the hacker) had contacted the media and leaked fake info about the hack.
Problem is that Brian never made it clear that the hacker was his own source for all the previous posts.