Why doesn't news media link to sources more often?
In the information maelstrom we all live in today, I’ve noticed more and more that mainstream opinion pieces and reporters often don’t link to their sources. This begs the question, why not? Why don’t mainstream media sites include more hyperlinks to the sources of their reporting? This is something academics must do to back up the claims they make. Moreover, it isn’t hard to do; there are many many writers and pieces that do just this.
And yet, somehow, I read piece after piece that make factual claims without sourcing, leaving me with no idea as to the worth of the information presented.
An example from this morning:
In Gary Mason’s opinion piece on endemic COVID in The Globe and Mail, he makes several factual assertions in which I’m sure readers would like to know more.
But [Fauci] was only echoing what epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists have been stressing for some time: COVID-19 and its mutant iterations will be with us for some time, and possibly forever.
Why not provide links to what these epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists have been stressing so that we can get more detail? It’s super important information, and I would love to know more.
Another more problematic assertion comes up later:
[Getting more people vaccinated is] a challenge in Africa, which is affected by high vaccine hesitancy and supply inequity.
These are two assertions that I would really like sources for because not only do I not know much about the subject, I have also found contradictory information in other sources I trust.
For instance, this morning I read Matt Yglesias’s excellent Substack post from 30 November 2021 about pandemic prevention where he states basically the opposite, challenging the idea that this is an equity issue (although not outright):
mRNA vaccines are genuinely scarce. It’s not a fake scarcity where if Malawi would just fork over some more cash they’d get more vaccines. Poorer countries ended up at the back of the line because they are poor, but the line exists because there aren’t enough doses.
The facts re: equity will affect public support for policy in the West. Should the West legislate against current patent law in order to get more vaccines to Africa and thus avoid future variants of COVID and a ‘forever pandemic’? Would that even solve the problem? Or is the problem actually a supply problem that could be fixed by creating the necessary infrastructure? Could the West just pay more money to vaccine manufacturers to get the job done? The correct information will decide what policies (if any) our populations support and governments pursue. And yet, neither writer provided a source to these assertions, so readers have no idea without doing their own research what is true.
I don’t think it is fair to ask that the writers ‘get it right’ all the time—contradictory evidence and lively debate must be acceptable. But given that we are constantly subjected to discussions about misinformation, disinformation, alternative facts and fake news, perhaps providing sources would allow readers to make up their own minds as to the content’s veracity.
Above is just one example, but it is something I’ve been witnessing (and that people have been complaining about) for years now, and media outlets should invest more in their writers so that they are able to produce this sourcing.
We have one of the most educated populations in human history. In the US, over 90% of adults have completed high school, and, in many Western countries, roughly half the population holds a degree. Not only are these people (and most others) capable of critical thinking, they are likely getting better at it because they are doing more of it—a consequence of our information-rich environment.
Articles that assemble, convey and opine on information are important, but given the level of education and information saturation we live with, this is no longer enough. Presenting information this way without sourcing is essentially gatekeeping, a practice which is both disrespectful to readers and unhelpful in decision-making.
In researching this article, I found a lively discussion on why this dearth of sourcing might be the case—which is both nefarious and honest. So, for further reading, check out ‘Why Don’t Journalists Cite Sources’ by Justin Brady and ‘The growing problem of Internet “link rot” and best practices for media and online publishers’ by Leighton Walter Kille.
Another note. In an effort to produce more content for this space, I am going to start posting shorter (more bloggish) posts that link to other content worth reading and/or open up conversation points—kind of like an over-glorified Facebook page. I willingly accept that there will be some mistakes in my copy and arguments based on this. But I’d rather express my thoughts than let them fester. Enjoy!