"Why don't journalists link to primary sources?"

Link: "Why don't journalists link to primary sources?"

gmdrake:

I’ve often wondered that myself.

Even when the full text of the original scientific paper isn’t freely available on the web, news articles could at least link to the abstract and the full reference. Often, for a big story, the first author’s website or their institution’s website will display a press release or other accurate summary — so a reader can check details and know where to go to get more information.

Science news publications tend to be a bit better about this — I suppose because they assume their audience wants to actually be informed. Newspapers, magazines, and news websites, on the other hand, want sensational headlines and lurid stories to get “eyeballs” on their ads. I suppose when these publications make fun of science and scientists, their idea is to make readers feel better about their own lack of science literacy.

Anyway, this link is to a piece by Ben Goldacre, in which he cites some hilariously egregious examples. it’s not a new article, but I just saw it for the first time today and it’s just as relevant as it was back in March.