Today I saw a link to a CNN article that pretty much sums up what I get annoyed at most with most of the "old media" sites. The article talks about "a report released Wednesday", gives some of the highlights, summarizes some stuff, but doesn't answer the questions I have (like "which states were not having budget issues?"). In particular it doesn't link to the actual report it's talking about. Nor does it feel the need to explain why it's not doing so (NDA? Report is paywalled? They only read a press release and not the actual report? Something else?). At this point, that automatically reduces the credibility of both the article and the report in my eyes.
I did take a look at the 2008 reports from the people cited in the CNN article but none of them look obviously relevant. The only one I see about state revenues doesn't really say what the CNN article does.
It's odd that I now fully expect good news coverage to provide links to something resembling primary sources. It's amazing to me that such an expectation is not always disappointed. At least as long as the news coverage doesn't come from things like CNN (and BBC and others; none of them really cite their sources very well at all).Posted by bzbarsky at February 17, 2010 1:51 AM | TrackBack