I can't agree with you this time, Mr Reynolds, I think you have really got it wrong here. Just because the story is incomplete, it doesn't follow that the journalist hasn't tried to obtain more information. What is there looks to be accurate - it states the known facts. The story hasn't implied the ambulance crew are at fault - although I notice you have by giving details of what normally justifies a sacking. (I notice the trust's press office didn't give that particular fact out - or the journo chose not to use it.) What the story has done is demonstrate that this meal breaks issue is a serious problem. To suggest that journalists have a problem with ambulance crews having meal breaks is quite unfair. What journalists have a problem with is people dying when they don't need to. (Which, incidentally, illustrates the difference between 'the public interest' and 'of interest to the public'). It's the broader issue that is important. Somebody, somewhere has got this whole meal breaks thing very wrong. I doubt it's the ambulance crew, although that is itself irrelevant. Their predicament provides the 'hook' right now. No hook = no story = no publicity = no embarrassing pressure on whoever got us in this mess in the first place. Want change? The media can deliver it. And it can't wait for the outcome of the inquest - not unless you want your papers filled with the news from years ago. There's a few comments on here about the current standard of journalism. Funny thing is, most working journalists I know agree with you - we don't like it any more than you. We want our stories to be 100% accurate and bursting with detail. Time was a journalist got to cross-check multiple sources before publishing. Now there is no time. That's what happens when you move from newspapers to web-and-TV news delivery. Anyone fancy putting the genie back in the bottle on that one?