[adhesive_wombat]

That's a funny one too me, because they do some very good journalism that spans many many years on many people up to no good. Frequently, they're the only ones doing anything more investigative than rewriting press releases and newswires and they must have an absolutely enormous library of material on public figures to be able to connect the dots that they do.

But when they report on something, it's gone from the public view in a few weeks as the only place you could find it would be your own archive, assuming it goes back that far (and you wish to dedicate the space in your house), or a major library of which there are only a handful in the country that would maintain an indefinite archive.

Something more impactful than a report on another suspiciously "bungled" contract by a councillor would be to be able to see the other articles they've done on that person over the decades. Even if there was, say, a year-long delay in putting them in the archive, there's a difference between "Eyes passim" (doubly irritating as there's also no thematic index and hundreds of back issues you'd need to look in) and seeing the older reports in front of you.