[Poohbah]

In the final months the audacity of the deceptions grew by the week, suggesting the work of a troubled young man veering toward professional self-destruction.

No, it suggests that the fact-checking was nil, as long as what he wrote conformed to the editor's prejudices.

[Drango]

Both editors also said they had never asked Mr. Blair to identify his sources in the article.

Is this SOP at all newspapers? Call me dumb, but I assumed that editors were there to occasionally/sometimes/frequently check sources?

[Travis McGee]

No, it suggests that the fact-checking was nil, as long as what he wrote conformed to the editor's prejudices.

You've got it! I use this throughout my novel to skewer the liberal media. The villain understands this dynamic, so he provides a "right-wing gun-nut militia fanatic" patsy for the stadium assault rifle massacre.

He understands this false culprit will be accepted eagerly by the media, with almost no digging for deeper truths. And he's right.

The villain calls his concept "probable culpability", the converse of the well known "plausible deniability."

Just commit an outrageous gun crime, and leave a "disturbed veteran" with an AK-47 nearby for the SWAT boys to shoot. Case closed.