Wired magazine, which has published a great deal of his work, first seemed remarkably unconcerned, saying he continued to be a “valued contributor” before walking that back and saying his work was the subject of an ongoing “inquiry.” Makes you wonder what it would take to end up in the permanent naughty corner at Wired.

The self-cleaning tendencies of the Web got credit for unearthing the misconduct in the first place. Then again, the Web’s ferocious appetite for content — you are only as visible as your last post, as Clay Shirky recently said to me — probably had something to do with why Mr. Lehrer tried to feed the beast with retreads and half-baked work.

Before we place all the blame on the Web, let’s remember that Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass and Janet Cooke all made stuff up for print realms. But part of the problem with journalism online is that it all seems mutable. The truth, if there is one, emerges in the wash and if there is an error, well, that’s what find and replace is for, right? Or maybe it can be finessed in the next post.

Mr. Lehrer, now 31, became famous before he had a grasp of the fundamentals. Seth Mnookin and others pointed out that his approach to writing about science was somewhat less than scientific.

The now ancient routes to credibility at small magazines and newspapers — toiling in menial jobs while learning the business — have been wiped out, replaced by an algorithm of social media heat and blog traction. Every reporter who came up in legacy media can tell you about a come-to-Jesus moment, when an editor put them up against a wall and tattooed a message deep into their skull: show respect for the fundamentals of the craft, or you would soon not be part of it.

I once lost a job I dearly wanted because I had misspelled the name of the publisher of the publication I was about to go to work for. Not very smart, but I learned a brutal lesson that has stayed with me. Nobody ever did that for Mr. Lehrer, even after repeated questions were raised about his work.