I'd say this is one of the greatest challenges journalists face: Sometimes you talk to a lot of people and do a lot of research only to find out there is no story.

"Smartphone usage increase while driving has caused more accidents" is a nice narrative that totally _makes sense_, but unfortunately only becomes newsworthy if there is evidence that the reporter can find-- perhaps from highway patrols and police officers, mobile data usage stats, or I suppose anecdotally from someone who studies this stuff.

But sometimes that's not available, or it is and goes against the original narrative. At that point the reporter can either choose to tell their editor that there is no story, or go out seeking confirmation of the original narrative.