Journalists aren't supposed to take what a "whistleblower" says at face value. If Krebs were a journalist at the NYTimes, for example, they would've done a lot of background research to corroborate the insider's story before publishing the quote. And then either would not have run it or at least have been clear about how little he knows about the "whistleblower".
And the bigger issue is, once the truth came out, he should've done a retraction and discussed what he knows about "Adam" and how he was likely the hacker who did the extortion.
Ignoring that I didn't ask anything like "what should Krebs have done later?":
> he should've done a retraction and discussed what he knows about "Adam" and how he was likely the hacker who did the extortion.
That's not a retraction. That's an update based on new information. Those aren't the same thing. This is just begging the question of his knowledge. It doesn't really seem like Krebs, even if he is a shitty journalist overall (I know very little about him, so I'm not going to assume one way or another), said anything actually false at the time he said it.
Is a journalist, once they report on a story once, required to continue reporting on that story forever?
If a journalist is complicit in helping an extortion attempt with one of their stories, then, yes, any ethical journalist has a responsibility to update it. This will (hopefully) be a pretty rare occurrence.
Which is it, was he duped or was he complicit? These are very different accusations, and exactly what I mean by begging the question of his knowledge. You (and it seems ubiquiti) are assuming he knew this at some point where he claims he didn't, which makes him not just a victim of misinformation but an active perpetrator.
Proving that in court seems like it's going to be very hard. Never mind proving that he did it intentionally and with malice. It's not like he gains anything really by not expanding on the story as we know it, and as I've mentioned, it's not even clear what ubiquiti gains from expecting him to talk about new facts that make them look bad.
And the bigger issue is, once the truth came out, he should've done a retraction and discussed what he knows about "Adam" and how he was likely the hacker who did the extortion.