Which major newsrooms have published follow-up investigations on the Substack audio attributed to Lisa Noelle Volding?
Executive summary
No evidence in the reporting provided shows any major newsroom has published a follow-up investigation to the Substack audio attributed to Lisa Noelle Voldeng; the material appears to live on Voldeng’s Substack and in social threads reporting and reaction, and Voldeng herself frames the material as part of an ongoing, self-published effort [1] [2] [3]. Independent observers on social platforms have amplified the audio and produced timelines or questions about Voldeng’s credentials, but those posts are not equivalent to newsroom investigations [4] [5].
1. What the primary documents actually are: a Substack release and self-described corroboration
The central material cited across the sources is audio and related documents published directly on Lisa Noelle Voldeng’s Substack, where she posted “un-redacted audio recordings of firsthand accounts” and described mapping incidents to supporting evidence as part of a multi-part release [1] [2]; her Substack profile and posts are the originating public corpus for these allegations [3].
2. How Voldeng frames the publication and its status
Voldeng explicitly states she provided recordings and “initial corroborative documents” to police and allies and characterizes the publication as intended “in the public interest,” adding that “investigations are ongoing,” language that frames the Substack as both a disclosure platform and a prompt for official probes rather than as a finished investigative product vetted by established newsrooms [2].
3. Social amplification and independent timelines, not newsroom inquiries
Users on Threads and other social platforms have taken Voldeng’s posted audio and constructed timelines or summaries—for example, a Threads poster attached a PDF timeline “started with Sascha Riley’s testimony…taken by Lisa Noelle Volding and posted unredacted as raw audio to her substack”—but those are user-driven aggregations and commentary rather than professional newsroom follow-ups [4].
4. Public skepticism and questions about journalistic credentials
Public reaction recorded in the provided sources includes explicit skepticism about Voldeng’s background and the nature of the material; one Threads user asked who Voldeng is, noted that searches mainly return her Substack and a nondescript website, and cautioned that the content is an interview rather than sworn testimony, comparing it to a potential partisan or conspiratorial phenomenon—remarks that read as cautionary context in lieu of independent verification by mainstream outlets [5].
5. Claims about content severity and the need for corroboration
Voldeng’s posts describe extremely serious allegations—“firsthand accounts of child trafficking, torture, rape and murder” and assertions about suppressed evidence and FOIA-obtainable records—which, if true, would typically prompt enterprise reporting from major newsrooms; the texts we have show those claims but do not show any major newsroom confirming, contesting, or investigating them in the supplied reporting [1] [2] [6].
6. What can and cannot be concluded from the sources provided
Based solely on the reporting assembled here, it is accurate to say major newsrooms have not been shown to have published follow-up investigations to the Substack audio attributed to Lisa Noelle Voldeng; the record consists of Voldeng’s own posts, social amplification, and public skepticism, and the documents note that investigations are “ongoing” without naming newsroom-led probes [1] [2] [4] [5]. If major newsrooms have since opened formal follow-ups, those pieces are not present in the supplied sources and therefore cannot be asserted here.