This shows how news orgs will continue to press on with disinformstiin despite having evidence disctediting their claims. Reputable organizations at that.
Yes, that's the first half of the article (and the primary motivation). The "Please Stop Arguing About Attribution Without Expertise In It" is the section I was pointing to.
This is to say nothing about this particular case. I have no idea how solid the attribution is here. But the same comments to dismiss the whole idea of attribution out of hand come up every time, and they don't get it.
We shouldn't take it on blind faith that some attribution is accurate because it appears in the press. But we also should not interject with uninformed speculation about how we think attribution works, and then attack that straw man so they can cast aspersions on the motives of those making said attributions.
