Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is everything wrong with American media in one article 100% agree. What she should have done was not cancel the feature, but write what actually happened--right after it happened, not now, when Theranos has already been outed as a fraud and she's just another one jumping on the bandwagon.
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 could…
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.