This is not to meant denigrate the work of the many good journalists and news orgs out there. Rather, it’s just to say that by simply being transparent about your process wherever possible, so that people can check your sources or pursue their own inquiries further, you give people even more reason to turn to your work when they’re in need of information.

I think for too long news orgs and journalists have relied too heavily on semi-blind faith in their news brand. Partly that was because of the limitations of print and broadcast media (no links, limited space/time, not easy to compare to other reports, etc.).

But now, people’s access to information are changing — and so are expectations. This raises the bar for earning trust. “Because I said so” is no longer good enough if proof is just a link away.

My point here is that linking to sources wherever possible is one important way to retain trust in this changing environment. Because failing to do so can look lazy, condescending, or like you’re hiding something.

- Amy Gahran
That way,

I think that’s part of the problem news organisations face… if people don’t trust the NYT to tell them the truth then what is the point of those journalists at all? Why not just link to the court papers and have done?

As a journalist I consider it part of my job to summarise and present the facts. I’d link to the sources for those who were interested but I’d expect my story to provide a factual and accurate precis for those who didn’t have the time.

If readers – especially people like Amy – don’t trust journalists to do that then we really are in trouble.

Funny. I read that and hit ctrl+t, ready to race off after ‘em, then paused – stopped myself really – and read the rest of your post. You make some excellent points.

I gotta admit though, if they started doing the leg work for us, I’d kinda miss the scavenger hunt.