He's a little contradictory about it. A followup story is a great way of correcting errors (#4) and describing what isn't known (#3). #1 is also undermined by

He's a little contradictory about it. A followup story is a great way of correcting errors (#4) and describing what isn't known (#3). #1 is also undermined by #6: crusades, even when you think you have the facts on your side, are of a piece with commentary. So I'd replace his #1 with "no fluff pieces masquerading as news" and call the list good as far as it goes. On the topic of anniversary stories, I think timelines are badly underused in hard-news stories. A clear and thorough chronology, in chart format to make different threads clear, helps explain complicated scenarios. But newspapers seem to think of graphics as a way of dumbing things down, not as legitimate tools. If I ran a newspaper, it would be full of complex visual analysis. (Complex as opposed to the stupid three-bar graphs you sometimes see in margins.)