I get that instant "fact checking" isn't always possible, and sometimes journalists will end up passing along things that important people say without ensuring that they are correct. This isn't good, of course, but I see how it happens innocently.
What is amazing is the outlets that went to check the "DOGE website" and saw that nothing was there, and then typed up "oh obviously this is what he meant, posting stuff on X" which is also not, in content, what he claimed.
