5 ms·

I've talked to a couple of editors and the 2. is the correct answer. It is really annoying when the article is about something that happens in the web, like a

by neves 9y ago

I've talked to a couple of editors and the 2. is the correct answer. It is really annoying when the article is about something that happens in the web, like a web site, and they don't link it. I believe they think their value is to "explain" things to the mindless reader, but it also perverse that they use it to impose their point of view.

dv_dt 9y ago
The lack of links makes me less likely to go to a newspaper article the next time. I think newspapers are missing out when compared to models like Reddit. They don't have to go full Reddit, but there is a gap in journalistic form between newspapers old-school self contained writing and a newer approach that could use an article as coverage as well as an introduction of context, then optionally leads to richer more-detailed authoritative sources. I'm much more likely to pay for the latter as a subscriber.
- _jal 9y ago
  Ditto - lack of primary sourcing has led me to seek out new outlets in a couple instances, and I haven't looked back. Don't know how long they've been doing this, but I noticed recently that the Washington Post is linking to primary sources, and the NYT seems to do it sometimes but not others. So at least some of the big ones are doing better.
  - mannykannot 9y ago
    I agree, things are getting better. Links to sources has been a feature of high-quality science journalism for a while. It is good to see this spreading, and while it may have taken longer than it should have, I don't see it as a reason to give up on journalism.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  > The lack of links makes me less likely to go to a newspaper article the next time. My least favorite case for this is "a new poll shows people think X", with no link to the actual poll with the actual questions. Given the many, many demonstrations of how a wording change can completely reverse poll answers, I'm inclined to view non-quoted, non-sourced poll results as essentially dishonest. It's the sort of thing that will make me think twice about going back to that source for anything I can't cross-reference easily.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > My least favorite case for this is "a new poll shows people think X", with no link to the actual poll with the actual questions. They usually announce the source of the poll. Many polls don't have a freely-available link to the details, though you can sometines spend lots of money to buy that access.
    - arbie 9y ago
      > Many polls don't have a freely-available link to the details, though you can sometines spend lots of money to buy that access. I have never understood the business model behind releasing key figures from your poll (generally the crux of it) but gating the rest of it (including polling methods) behind a pricey paywall. Is it to deter the casual lookie-loo while gaining the attention of companies in the industries impacted by the poll results?
  - Natsu 9y ago
    The ones I hate most are freely available legal rulings, government documents, and scientific papers that are open access (or at least link me to an abstract). It's not like having sources available makes the story worse for others.
Spooky23 9y ago
That’s a cynical interpretation. The logic is that a newspaper article is an atomic unit. You can pick up a digitized NY Times article from 1890 and have the same facts (albeit without the same context) as a contemporary reader. Linking to sources, even primary sources, encourages laziness on the part of the writer and an implicit expectation that the reader has that knowledge. As a layperson, I want a story, I don’t somebody directing me to read Supreme Court opinions. Most internet focused reporting is sort of a hybrid of news magazine and TV. 99% of links are dead in five years. It’s one of the many ways that the disruption and destruction of newspapers is an objectively bad thing for society.
- Zak 9y ago
  A good hybrid approach would be to write as if there will be no links, but add them at the end.
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  If you read science stories, you're going to need the link, very often. The chances that the writer has it exactly right are slim. But I'm off - to read the Supreme Court's view of early patent history.
- azernik 9y ago
  The New York Times is in fact a counter-example; all their online articles link extensively to sources they refer to.
- cryptonector 9y ago
  In the old paper world this makes sense, and anyways, printing links wouldn't be all that useful. It was "easy enough" in the olden days to just go to the local library and search for whatever was referenced. In the digital world, if it's link-rot you're worried about, then the paper could just, you know, _archive_ the linked documents and provide links to both, the original and the archived copies. Yes, there's a bit of a copyright law issue there, but it's manageable, and certainly legal opinions from U.S. courts are freely republishable.

by neves 9y ago

dv_dt 9y ago

The lack of links makes me less likely to go to a newspaper article the next time. I think newspapers are missing out when compared to models like Reddit. They don't have to go full Reddit, but there is a gap in journalistic form between newspapers old-school self contained writing and a newer approach that could use an article as coverage as well as an introduction of context, then optionally leads to richer more-detailed authoritative sources. I'm much more likely to pay for the latter as a subscriber.

_jal 9y ago
Ditto - lack of primary sourcing has led me to seek out new outlets in a couple instances, and I haven't looked back. Don't know how long they've been doing this, but I noticed recently that the Washington Post is linking to primary sources, and the NYT seems to do it sometimes but not others. So at least some of the big ones are doing better.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  I agree, things are getting better. Links to sources has been a feature of high-quality science journalism for a while. It is good to see this spreading, and while it may have taken longer than it should have, I don't see it as a reason to give up on journalism.
Bartweiss 9y ago
> The lack of links makes me less likely to go to a newspaper article the next time. My least favorite case for this is "a new poll shows people think X", with no link to the actual poll with the actual questions. Given the many, many demonstrations of how a wording change can completely reverse poll answers, I'm inclined to view non-quoted, non-sourced poll results as essentially dishonest. It's the sort of thing that will make me think twice about going back to that source for anything I can't cross-reference easily.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > My least favorite case for this is "a new poll shows people think X", with no link to the actual poll with the actual questions. They usually announce the source of the poll. Many polls don't have a freely-available link to the details, though you can sometines spend lots of money to buy that access.
  - arbie 9y ago
    > Many polls don't have a freely-available link to the details, though you can sometines spend lots of money to buy that access. I have never understood the business model behind releasing key figures from your poll (generally the crux of it) but gating the rest of it (including polling methods) behind a pricey paywall. Is it to deter the casual lookie-loo while gaining the attention of companies in the industries impacted by the poll results?
- Natsu 9y ago
  The ones I hate most are freely available legal rulings, government documents, and scientific papers that are open access (or at least link me to an abstract). It's not like having sources available makes the story worse for others.

Spooky23 9y ago

That’s a cynical interpretation. The logic is that a newspaper article is an atomic unit. You can pick up a digitized NY Times article from 1890 and have the same facts (albeit without the same context) as a contemporary reader. Linking to sources, even primary sources, encourages laziness on the part of the writer and an implicit expectation that the reader has that knowledge. As a layperson, I want a story, I don’t somebody directing me to read Supreme Court opinions. Most internet focused reporting is sort of a hybrid of news magazine and TV. 99% of links are dead in five years. It’s one of the many ways that the disruption and destruction of newspapers is an objectively bad thing for society.

Zak 9y ago
A good hybrid approach would be to write as if there will be no links, but add them at the end.
Nomentatus 9y ago
If you read science stories, you're going to need the link, very often. The chances that the writer has it exactly right are slim. But I'm off - to read the Supreme Court's view of early patent history.
azernik 9y ago
The New York Times is in fact a counter-example; all their online articles link extensively to sources they refer to.
cryptonector 9y ago
In the old paper world this makes sense, and anyways, printing links wouldn't be all that useful. It was "easy enough" in the olden days to just go to the local library and search for whatever was referenced. In the digital world, if it's link-rot you're worried about, then the paper could just, you know, _archive_ the linked documents and provide links to both, the original and the archived copies. Yes, there's a bit of a copyright law issue there, but it's manageable, and certainly legal opinions from U.S. courts are freely republishable.