Originally Posted by dirtywick
You referenced it. "Your link" seems like a reasonable figure of speech to use in this context. Are you not endorsing the link? Not appealing to its content in support of your arguments?
Again, what other explanation should I consider? Your link gives more detail about how this kind of thing can happen. But it really doesn't suggest another interpretation. The process has gaps. No mention has been made of efforts to close those gaps. Rather, journalistic failures arising from those gaps are excused instead. Lack of effort resulting in errors, followed by excuses, sure seems like laziness to me. Maybe it's just incompetence, though. Is that the option I'm missing? They're just incompetent?