I must correct, or expand upon, something I posted earlier today. In writing about an absurd correction in the New York Times, I wrote that the Times “certainly doesn’t require linking to digital sources of information.”
Whether I was correct depends upon your definition of the word require. If it means that you have a policy encouraging links in some situations and making them mandatory in others, the Times requires links. But if require means staff members actually practice that policy, the Times falls short.
Patrick LaForge, Editor for News Presentation at the Times, sent me the following passage from the New York Times Stylebook:
Link is acceptable in reference to a hyperlink on the web. If an article refers to material of interest to readers, such as a website, document, image or video, provide an embedded link as a convenience. Readers also value links to background information and other useful content. When crediting a competitor, providing a link is mandatory.
That’s the first part of a longer entry on links. For context, I’ll post the rest at the end of this post.
That’s a better policy than most, but it’s not strong enough. It doesn’t address linking as a matter of ethics, just as a “convenience” and “value” to readers. The only mandatory part is linking to competitors, which I applaud, since news organizations are shamefully reluctant to do that. And linking should be addressed in ethics codes and policies, not just stylebooks.
The Buttry Diary 