What story? "I went to Theranos, didn't get to talk to anyone who did the test, then there was a fire alarm"?
It all fits together quite nicely in hindsight when stuffed with a bunch of vague accusations and synthesis about motives, but I would have agreed with any editor axing the story at the time.
For the record, I assume her suspicions about people getting cagey, and maybe even the fire alarm, are quite right. But once again, hindsight.
"The actual services Theranos appears to be providing to patients does not match the services Theranos claims to provide in its PR statements." That seems like (a) useful information to other potential Theranos patients, and (b) exactly the sort of information that "investigative journalism" is supposed to be providing to the public.
But that's not true. Theranos were absolutely doing finger-prick tests, as is stated in the article.
The fact that the journalist didn't see any may well be cause to go back and try to find evidence, but a lack of evidence isn't a story in itself.
I'd point out, too, that if the journalist believed at the time that it was an outright lie, I seriously doubt that she would have dropped it - it's too big a story. More likely she had some misgivings which have been amplified in the wake of the recent news.
> Theranos were absolutely doing finger-prick tests
Yes--much, much less often than their PR led people to expect. Also, they were actually getting much less information from a single finger prick than their PR was claiming. That's why they were having to do full venipuncture blood draws for tests that their PR led many people to believe would only require a finger prick.
> The fact that the journalist didn't see any may well be cause to go back and try to find evidence
Which she didn't.
> if the journalist believed at the time that it was an outright lie, I seriously doubt that she would have dropped it - it's too big a story. More likely she had some misgivings
Which she should have followed up at the time, if she were really an investigative journalist.
I said it may well be cause to go back, not it /is/ cause to go back.
I've read a couple of articles just today that don't seem to check out in some minor way. I can think of one widely-reported story off the top of my head that appears to be grossly misrepresentative of fact if not false. An investigative journalist probably has dozens. Choices need to be made.
The fact that this wasn't pursued for months strongly suggests that none of this evidence was nearly as compelling as it's now being painted.
> I can think of one widely-reported story off the top of my head that appears to be grossly misrepresentative of fact if not false. An investigative journalist probably has dozens. Choices need to be made.
I'm not sure I understand. "Choices need to be made" about what? About which grossly misrepresentative stories to actually publish? Or about which ones to check out first, as opposed to just publishing?
In short, what you're describing just looks like more symptoms of the same underlying disease.
It all fits together quite nicely in hindsight when stuffed with a bunch of vague accusations and synthesis about motives, but I would have agreed with any editor axing the story at the time.
For the record, I assume her suspicions about people getting cagey, and maybe even the fire alarm, are quite right. But once again, hindsight.