This is a bit off topic, but I see this bafflement over the general decline in editing quality a lot. It&#x27;s really not so surprising given the way the news landscape has changed in the last couple decades.<p>Editing is expensive[1]. The internet ripped the heart out of the print news business. Accordingly, editing has been cut back drastically pretty much across the board in response to increasingly tight budgets.<p>[1] Much more expensive than one might assume without having experienced the process. Coordinating among multiple people plus the back and forth iterative process that editing generates adds a lot of overhead to the writing process. Self editing is much faster (and therefore cheaper), but you get blind to errors that would jump out at someone else, and so errors slip through much more readily. Plus, other people are capable of challenging your assumptions in a way that you just aren&#x27;t capable of since you aren&#x27;t even always aware of your own assumptions.<p>Source: I&#x27;ve written informally at the margins for a reasonably, but not tremendously, high trafficked niche blog, and have participated a little in both edited and self-edited articles from both the writing and editing side. This was never industrial strength editing, so I imagine the cost to actual news outlets with higher standards is a lot higher than I have experienced.