So... you want a media filled with negative results? Every time someone chases a lead that goes nowhere that it shows up as a (literal!) non-story that no one wants to read?
I mean, what was she supposed to have written. Obviously you want her to have written about Theranos being a fraud, but she didn't have that story. All she had was a fire alarm and an inability to find anyone getting finger prick tests.
She couldn't prove fraud. She just had a hunch that things were wrong. She had no leads on a fraud story, and she had to get articles out that her employer could actually publish.
> So... you want a media filled with negative results?
No, I want people who call themselves investigative journalists to actually investigate. That means following things up instead of dropping them just because they don't think (or their editor doesn't think) it will lead to a headline that's click-baity enough.
> She just had a hunch that things were wrong.
Which she did nothing at all to follow up. But that's exactly the sort of thing investigative journalists are supposed to follow up. That's their job.
I mean, what was she supposed to have written. Obviously you want her to have written about Theranos being a fraud, but she didn't have that story. All she had was a fire alarm and an inability to find anyone getting finger prick tests.
She couldn't prove fraud. She just had a hunch that things were wrong. She had no leads on a fraud story, and she had to get articles out that her employer could actually publish.
You're asking too much here.