This is what it is referring to: “LaPorta also told his editors that a senior manager had already vetted the source of LaPorta’s tip — leaving the impression that the story’s sourcing had been approved. While that editor had signed off on previous stories using LaPorta’s source, that editor had not weighed in on the missile story.”

He told them an editor had signed off who hadn’t, the editorial board made a decision based on him telling them it had already been vetted.

So instead of confirming from multiple sources they decided to believe his lie so they could get the story out, instead of verifying.

He is most likely a scape goat for their bad decision making because in their excitement of being able to be the first to report on the beginning of the third world war, they misconstrued something he said or something he wrote as if it was Gospel and pulled the trigger so they could be “first” which is of course “his fault” not theirs for letting it through. The editors screwed the pooch and now need someone to blame for not doing their jobs properly.

It’s impossible to say. Hell, maybe the guy is an absolute asshole in the workplace and was on probation for inappropriate behavior. It’s all entirely speculative.