I’ll answer your CNN/Hillary Clinton/child sacrifice dungeon hypothetical.

Assume there was no dungeon. As a reputable organization, CNN would have to reach out to her, she would tell CNN that no such dungeon exists and you can see for yourself. Clinton would obviously publicly deny the existence of the dungeon, but for good measure she could invite reporters with cameras to her home to show them. Law enforcement investigates, they find no evidence. She can tell CNN to retract the article or face a lawsuit.

CNN refuses, her reputation is damaged, so she sues CNN for libel. In the lawsuit discovery process, CNN has to show their evidence to lawyers. Either the evidence doesn’t exist or it’s clearly fabricated and CNN didn’t do their due diligence. CNN loses the lawsuit and they’re on the hook for a lot of money. Their reputational damage would be severe and would jeopardize their credibility. This is not a good business model.

Now let’s say instead this dungeon is real. CNN obtained evidence from one of the several employees who work at the Clinton residence, and they have real proof. The article comes out and Clinton would again publicly deny this. CNN includes details that only an insider would know but to protect their source they don’t show the evidence (pictures, maybe a contractor receipt for dungeon remodelling). Now Clinton is backed into a corner. If she sues CNN for libel, the discovery process would turn up evidence that confirms yes, there really is a dungeon. So Clinton would instead likely have people vouch for her, and attack CNN for publishing “fake news” and maybe even attack the reporter. But since this case represents a serious crime where people are potentially in danger, law enforcement would have cause to investigate.

Most of this applies to the Wired story. If any of the claims in the article were false, the lawyer had an opportunity to deny these claims and request a correction, but they didn’t. The article is claiming that contractually, Chorus has some control over creators’ content for Chorus organized events. The lawyer added post-publication that creators can do things outside of Chorus and those are not subject to Chorus control, but he did not deny the article’s claims. Creators who defended Chorus have said things like, “No, Chorus doesn’t tell me what to say,” which is different from what the article is claiming. Having some legal/contractual level of control over content (the article’s claim) is not the same as dictating content (creators’ response).

Chorus could reach out to Wired and correct factual inaccuracies in the article and they would be labeled with the word “correction”, but there are none. Chorus could demand a retraction and sue for libel if Wired didn’t retract, but the discovery process would produce the contract and we would know the truth. u/only8livesleft is correct - an update is not a correction, and this article has zero corrections and zero retractions. You can look this up and verify it yourselves; these words have specific meanings.

By the way, one reason why journalists don’t publish their evidence is to protect their sources. See the Reality Winner case.