That is a heartening example of good journalism. But nevertheless, there is one thing that I did not like with the way Ms Gold handled the story. She had an idea in mind of what kind of story she was going to write, and when reality did not pan out according to her plan, she just decided not to write the story.
If she had written about her experience she would have had a very important story and could have saved investors hundreds of millions of dollars.
The problem is she didn't necessarily have a story there, either, at least without an order of magnitude more research, at a minimum.
She went in for a light piece humanizing a new technology. Do you really expect her to shift gears into a massive fraud, with nothing more than weird PR pressure and a fire alarm?
Or the investors could've delved deeper with their due diligence? Should a journalist be more useful to the public before they're a shortcut for people trying to make more money?
(Unless there were small time investors wrapped up in bigger funds who also should've done more research.)
Good journalism? The story was nixed after the claims of the company couldn't be verified. This story - as is published now - would have been even better published years ago, when it was only suspected and not known that Theranos was a fraud.
come on. this is the post of a person who has a bit of a hindsight bias. if only she published this article the wsj wouldn't have had to publish theirs and theranos would have been immediately outed!
or... maybe she writes this story. says something to the effect of, "Hmm a bit WEIRD? What's Theranos hiding?" and then all the VCs and tech people start accusing her of having an agenda against Theranos.
If she had written about her experience she would have had a very important story and could have saved investors hundreds of millions of dollars.