citing is good for journalistic ethics, but linking is bad for search engine optimization—at least this is what many websites seem to believe. the idea is that a link to an external source provides PageRank to that source that you could have provided to a different page on your website instead.
if anyone in the future tries to find X, as a journalist, you want them to find your article about X, not X itself. journalism is a profit-making business, not charity.
Is it? That’s definitely what my English teacher wanted me to believe, but since every newspaper does it, all the time (except when someone Tweets something) I don’t see how it could be against journalistic ethics.
Indeed, I think there’s a strong undercurrent in most mainstream newspapers that “the people” are not smart enough to evaluate primary sources directly, and need journalists & communicators to ensure they arrive at the correct conclusions.
I don’t understand how not citing a source is considered acceptable practice. It seems antithetical to standard journalistic ethics.
citing is good for journalistic ethics, but linking is bad for search engine optimization—at least this is what many websites seem to believe. the idea is that a link to an external source provides PageRank to that source that you could have provided to a different page on your website instead.
if anyone in the future tries to find X, as a journalist, you want them to find your article about X, not X itself. journalism is a profit-making business, not charity.
Is it? That’s definitely what my English teacher wanted me to believe, but since every newspaper does it, all the time (except when someone Tweets something) I don’t see how it could be against journalistic ethics.
Indeed, I think there’s a strong undercurrent in most mainstream newspapers that “the people” are not smart enough to evaluate primary sources directly, and need journalists & communicators to ensure they arrive at the correct conclusions.