[fasteddie31003]

I don't understand why news sites do not add references and footnotes to their articles. I have been working on an idea for a site that makes "mind maps" of a graph of facts inside of news articles to show how conclusions are reached. However, I think the average person's critical reasoning skills would not appreciate this and just believe what they want to hear.

[anigbrowl]

There are outlets that do that, but they tend to be trade journals. Simple example: legal cases. Lots of outlets report on them, but mainstream news almost never cites the case numbers and only sometimes links to source material (indictments etc.). Specialist legal websites usually do, but they have more limited reach, can't cover everything, and tend to focus on cases that are legally interesting because they might establish or overturn a precedent. So they're not great for covering crime news where many cases turn on the facts rather than legalities. On the flip side, mainstream news reports often do a terrible job of reporting the details of a case, some just rewriting prosecutors' press releases.

I think trying to come up with semantic mind maps in articles is likely to limit your audience as it's an abstract critical process that's subject to accusations of, er, subjectivity. On the other hand, a service that reliably led people to improperly cited source material would have value; examples like criminal indictments as described above, or local coverage of events that is then taken up and rewritten (often without attribution or backlinks) by larger outlets.

This could solve local news outlets' revenue problem too. I hate following up a story that goes to a small newspaper in Nowheresville which then asks for a subscription; I'm unlikely to consult that paper for anything else in the foreseeable future. but it's not fair to the Nowheresville Times if Big City News rewrites their content without attribution. If BCN articles about events in Nowheresville were flagged as mere rewrites of NT content, the latter publisher would be able to make a strong argument for pass-through revenue to flow their way.

[Red_Leaves_Flyy]

I believe the word you're looking for is bibliography. If so, then I would love for all people that hold the title journalist or reporter to start including one. Use it for every statement. Will it slow down time to print? Sure. But factual accuracy and provability are worth enough that I would pay such a news source.

[alisonkisk]

Journalists have sources. They name sources. They avoid linking to sources because sources are their competition for attention and ad/subscription revenue.

It's the same reason shops don't link to their competitors' or wholesalers' websites

[Red_Leaves_Flyy]

>It's the same reason shops don't link to their competitors' or wholesalers' websites

Hardly. That's competition.

On the other hand your journalists are falling hard on using unnamed sources and tweets. What about back story, recent history, historically relevant information? Most articles are virtually all filler, no references, a quote, no context, no history.

[sumtechguy]

Those can and have been gamed so you also need a way to find that out too.

[hnracer]

I would've liked to see this quality of journalism regarding the recent election fraud allegations. With some exceptions the most common style has been to dismiss it as bad faith and cite election authorities who say there's insufficient evidence.

While I agree, it would've been much more illuminating, persuasive, engaging and educational to do a deep dive into the substance of the claims and show why they're likely incorrect. This is really the best way to assuage belief in related conspiracy theories too. We would learn both why the allegations are false and learn about how these false beliefs start and spread. Combine academic rigor (without its stifling formality) with the distribution of journalism. Be less verbose and more numerate and logical. Many bloggers do this but it's missing from the majority of mainstream journalistic outlets.

I somehow think the business model will preclude this though. They're providing outrage entertainment for the masses. Not everyone is a balanced individual with 130 IQ seeking detail and illumination.

[rayiner]

I agree with you strongly. I’m a lawyer and I still don’t really understand why Trump’s cases are so weak, because I haven’t had time to read most of the decisions. I assume it’s true, but the news coverage has been totally unilluminating.