Only if you're very lucky do you actually know any of these things. There's generally a very wide space of things that could have happened, and knowing that exactly one of them is wrong narrows things down very little. The space of motives for people to muddy the water is similarly wide, so you probably don't know anything new about the source.
You mean you know the outlet is unreliable, if they do it enough times. By "source" I assumed you meant the source of the story, about whom we still know nothing.
"You can't draw conclusions of any kind from false information; that's the problem with false information."
My point simply being, that you get information from false information, regarding the source of the false information. Philosophical and apparently out of place.
