You are probably correct that few journalists seek to mislead, but you skim over the real problem by saying it's "certainly commendable" to want to read primary

You are probably correct that few journalists seek to mislead, but you skim over the real problem by saying it's "certainly commendable" to want to read primary sources...and then just drop the subject. Why is it so damn hard to read the publicly available source material behind an article, if it's so commendable to do so? You argued for five paragraphs that it's not nefarious, but never gave your own answer; yes, some journalists are bad at summarising, but that doesn't tell us why none of them provide sources, or are expected to. I'd guess the answer is some combination of deadlines and editors and market demand and it just not being critical to summarising the news, but it's a bit milquetoast to complain about other explanations without giving one yourself.