There's a weird view that once you've told people about bad behavior once (and in the general case) then somehow you no longer need to share further and more sp

There's a weird view that once you've told people about bad behavior once (and in the general case) then somehow you no longer need to share further and more specific evidence of bad behavior because it's redundant or something. However this view is both wrong and counterproductive if the goal is to actually reduce/prevent such behavior. In the real world, a lot of people aren't aware of even the general case -- they have limited attention and so while you may know that Russian oligarchs hide their money in real estate, someone who is less news-savvy may not realize it. Moreover even people who understand the general problem (Oligarchs stashing national wealth into real estate in democratic countries), they may not understand the specifics of how this is done and our laws are bent and abused -- by the oligarchs and moneyed interests in our own countries. In general I think the news agencies are correct to recognize that there is important news here, and that these specific new details are important and relevant to ongoing attempts to solve these problems. Moreover, I think that even in cases where the news is entirely "redundant" (e.g., "powerful criminals continue to behave in a criminal manner") it's extremely important to put a spotlight on the behavior from time to time just so that politicians and citizens are aware that it's ongoing and are motivated to perhaps actually do something about it (should they be interested in doing so.) I don't know why I'm writing this absurdly-long comment in response to a random downvoted complaint, but I see this "what's new here?!" response pattern quite frequently on HN and I think that pattern of thinking can be problematic; I wish I would see less of it. If you're not interested in an article, by all means scroll on.