Is There A Need For A Dedicated Journalism Outfit To 'Follow Up' On News?

from the that's-not-news,-that's-olds... dept

Over at Nieman Lab there's an interesting post wondering if, following the recent Wikileaks publishing of nearly 100,000 documents on the Afghan war, there would really be any follow through on the reporting -- and wondering if it makes sense to have a news organization dedicated to following up on stories that other news organizations have dropped. As the article notes, plenty of reporters focus on the next big thing -- the next "breaking" story. It is called news after all. But there isn't nearly as much attention given to following up with stories after they break.

While I find the discussion interesting, I have to admit that I'm not convinced of the premise. After all, there are plenty of news stories that live on for a while, if the "follow up" events are considered newsworthy. And certainly, on niche topics, there are plenty of dedicated folks who follow those stories all the time. So an organization that just does follow through doesn't necessarily make sense, because the problem isn't necessarily the lack of follow-up, but the lack of newsworthy information to come out of such follow-ups.

Filed Under: follow up, journalism