There are many loose threads that haven't been sorted out or picked up on by the media I'd like to believe that this is because newspapers are being careful and double confirming things, but I've heard things about Doolittle which lead me to believe she's not the Woodward-esque brilliant investigative reporter she's making herself out to be. But she has a book coming out so there's that...might be keeping some of the best bits to sell more books.
Journalists don't report on hearsay - they write and report about things that can be verified to be true by multiple sources.
They are not speculators.
For example, someone might reek of being corrupt - but without verifiable evidence to
prove that they're corrupt, you won't hear about it in the paper. With the exception of "Opinion" pieces, newspapers are a vehicle for
journalists and the standards of journalism are very high. They could very well be researching all of these stories
and more, but you won't hear about them until they can demonstrate them to be true. Look at how long the Globe took to put together the Doug Ford story, despite the fact that it was an open secret that Doug Ford was a drug peddler in high school and despite all of the eyewitness accounts and anecdotes stating such. It was over 18 months and they still went to press earlier than they wanted to!
And of course,
there are exceptions - the crack video wouldn't have been reported on,
when it was reported on, if it weren't for Gawker blowing the lid off it. Which isn't to say they would not have reported what they saw, but just that the timing would have been different along with the context in which they were reporting the story.
All of
that being said, there are plenty of stories that journalists chase the lead to dead ends, and the research/partial reports just get filed away and never see the light of day. It's common practice. From getting a cold call saying "Rob Ford did X" to being able to write in a paper saying "Rob Ford did X" and being able to demonstrate that it's true takes
a lot of work. It's a months-long process, and if that months-long process casts enough doubt then you really can't do much with what you've got. Even if you have one guy saying "I was there and I saw it", often times that just isn't enough. And if you can't track down another witness, that's the end of it.