Is it old news even if we don't know about it?

Earlier this year, law-student and pageant beauty Kumari Fulbright made national headlines. Fulbright, who at the time had a prestigious clerkship, allegedly kidnapped and tortured her former boyfriend with the help of three other men. (The good news is, concerned citizens didn't close their eyes to the fiasco.)

After two hours of searching, the most recent news I could find on the case was an article published back in May. Surely, the pending case is not at a stand still, but its news coverage definitely is.

Another case, that of a University of Arkansas law professor suing his students, made national headlines. The students have graduated, but the drama and the court case has not ended, yet coverage of the suit by mainstream media seemingly has. In this case, the media failed to even provide all sides of the case or to stay on top of the schools response to the action.

These stories only serve as examples of many events that make national news, and then without resolve, vanish from the pages of the paper -- even the weird news section or the online outlet. This irritates me. If an event is newsworthy and the outcome pending, what makes it no longer news? Does something cease being important to the public when all of the media outlets have covered it at the onset? Does the rebuttal of other involved parties not matter? This doesn't seem fair, but it does seem accurate.

In thinking about why these and other stories have died, I've come up with several theories: 1) the impact of the event is not far reaching, 2) no end to the event or case seems possible, 3) the initial coverage received no feedback, and finally 4) maybe the media does not deem the location, subject, resolution or continuation of the coverage valuable to the public. Even with all of my theories, I see no good reason to introduce an on-going event or pending situation to the public and never follow-up on the unanswered issues.

While I realize that part of an issue's news value depends upon timing, the lapse of time or the lengthiness of an event should not kill the media's coverage of it. To cease coverage of an event that the public continues to have questions about is to close up shop prematurely.

One can only hope that media higher-ups would be receptive to reporters and editors that want to follow a story until its end...and by one, I'll be honest, I hope I'll have that chance.

The media has the power to agenda-set, but its responsibility to maintain that agenda is equally compelling. When I get my chance, let this post remind me of that power and responsibility...that is if my curiosity ever allows me to let go of a story.