A huge pet-peeve of mine when reading news online is the near complete absence of links. Legacy media doesn’t write for the web. They largely take content written for print and post it as-is.
I recently posted about an article in the Times Union that reported on a bill recently passed by the New York Legislature. The article didn’t link to the bill, nor does it link to other laws referenced in the article (like this one helping to protect doctors who prescribe medication).
That’s fine if journalists are just trying to tell a story to entertain. But if they’re looking to inform their readers, linking to sources is an important way to increase the value of their journalism:
- In stories about legislation, links to bills and laws make it easier for readers to reach out to officials to voice concerns or support for a bill. It also allows us to see whether our elected representatives are co-sponsors of a bill being considered.
- In stories about officials or politicians, links to public statements allow interested readers to develop greater context around the statements.
- In stories about local events or busineses, links to locations on maps make it easier for readers to build up a mental picture of the area.
- In stories about pending litigation, links to court filings allow interested citizens to obtain other potentially important information about the case.
- Even something basic, like a link to the wikipedia page a journalist used to build up their own understanding of a complex topic can be helpful for readers looking to learn and engage.
At some point, it can be tough to understand whether the absence of links in stories published on the web is laziness, incompetence, or if journalists are actively trying to hide reporting done in bad faith. (I do suspect the reasons are generally in that order.) Regardless, it’s thirty years past time for serious journalism outlets to start citing their sources in their articles.