This seems like a poor solution to the death of journalism. There aren't enough details to go on in the story, but I'm going to make an assumption that this pe

This seems like a poor solution to the death of journalism. There aren't enough details to go on in the story, but I'm going to make an assumption that this person was charged with a crime, stories were written about the charges, but when the charges were dropped or he was acquitted there was no followup story written and no update made to the original story. Journalism in Canada is dying. Most of the newspapers in Canada are owned by one company and newsrooms have been consolidated and shrunk. I used to read my city's two major newspapers - they'd report a different subset of what was happening, and where they reported on the same thing the stories and takes would be different. Both were biased, but biased in different directions, so I felt that I was getting a semi-balanced view by reading both. Now both papers are owned by the same company, have the same reporters, same editors, report on the same things, and run identical stories. There's no balanced view and not enough reporters to follow up on every little thing that gets reported. Ideally searching for this person's name would show the newest stories first ("person acquitted of crime", "charges dropped", etc), but if those stories never get written they will never show up in a search engine. And very few people will dig into CanLII to find the outcome, if it even makes it far enough to get into CanLII. I don't know what the solution is. Maybe the media shouldn't name names until someone is convicted? But that would likely have unintended consequences.