Is this the new strategy? Tell whopping big lies about the President--things which turn out to be obviously false, turning big stories into non-stories--in the hopes that something will resonate with the public?
It's wiser to assume incompetence than malice. That would mean that, in all three of these cases, the story as initially told was so very juicy--so perfect a weapon to bring down Trump or so delightfully bad for him--the reporter must have wanted it to be true with such passionate intensity that he didn't verify his facts completely. And if it really is incompetence and not "enemy action", it highlights a strange desperation on the part of our media.
Which I enjoy.