Position 24 states a fact about one newsroom and stops there. That is too narrow to be useful: it expires when those people leave the stage, and it teaches a reader nothing they can apply to a source nobody here has assessed. The general claim is this one.

“Horse dewormer” is a true sentence. The molecule does deworm horses. It also has a human formulation that sits on the World Health Organization’s essential medicines list, and the prescription under discussion was the human one. Every word of the characterisation is defensible and the impression it creates is false.

That is the move, and it is far more common than outright fabrication because it survives a fact-check. Select a true attribute, choose the one that carries the most contempt, and let the reader complete the inference. Nothing has to be retracted afterwards, because nothing false was said. It is also why “it is not a lie” is the standard defence — the defence the move is designed to leave available.

The defence against it is a habit, not a source. When a claim arrives pre-loaded with an impression, separate the two: what is the literal assertion, what is the impression, and does the first actually support the second. Then ask what the characterisation is FOR — whose case does this framing serve, and what would they have said if the answer were inconvenient to them.

The record in position 24 is unchanged and still stands. It is not the lesson. It is the evidence that the lesson generalises.