 What do you do when you're sourced or the person you're talking to is less credible than you initially thought or a shorter way to say that is? What do you think about Sully Mom inspired you to believe her story and what do you do differently now? And you may want to explain who she is to focus on. So Sully Ma'am is a Cambodian woman who had written a memoir about having been trafficked as a young girl, then started an organization to fight sex trafficking in Cambodia. And she's somebody who I visited her work a number of times. I admired her a great deal. I think she did tremendous work fighting trafficking. I also, Newsweek about maybe two years ago, raised a lot of serious questions about her back story. And I think in the end that she embellished her back story. Are there things you can do as a reporter to avoid that like having had this happen a couple of times? I mean, if you look at the number of people you've interviewed, it's a very small fraction where this has turned out. It's a minuscule, but I was just curious like are there things you can do to avoid this or is it just inevitable that like every 50 millionth person you interview is going to be? You know, there are things you can do that will reduce the risk and you can try to triangulate with other people. You also look for information that is opposite of self-serving, things that paint somebody in a bath lighter that don't fit in a convenient narrative. But at the end of the day, I mean, that doesn't always work as Sully shows.