> Mastbaum’s stories didn’t raise any red flags, he said; details were spot-checked by editors, and notes were provided whenever they had questions. They didn’t

> Mastbaum’s stories didn’t raise any red flags, he said; details were spot-checked by editors, and notes were provided whenever they had questions. They didn’t suspect anything was amiss until a reader reached out to them. Once they realized there were problems with the story, he explained, they did a complete review of all of Mastbaum’s work, reaching out to every single source and documenting the inconsistencies in an editor’s note. In addition to the fraudulent author, editors are (or were, or should be) accountable for lies getting into print. Especially when a writer under their purview lies over and over. Especially if you don't immediately pull all of that author's stories after even one of them is deemed fundamentally fraudulent. And I'm not sure how 'spot-checking' is meant to be used here, given that you could apparently catch quite a few of the lies in the articles with a Google search. What were they doing as editors? When we talk about the dwindling quality of journalism, or the dearth of trust in journalism, to me it always goes back to editors and fact-checkers. More precisely, the lack of them. It doesn't matter why they aren't doing their job, whether it's lack of money, time, or lack of skilled practicioners. Editors are really important, as it turns out.