Links are perfectly fine sources, better than primary ones in some ways because the reader can evaluate the author’s use of that citation with full context instead of having to take it on faith that someone else’s quote is being reported accurately and with context

Every link in there besides nyt goes to a msnow article that does the exact same thing as this article: just summarize somebody else’s news gathering

Researching organizing and presenting multiple sources for readers and synthesizing those sources into a meta story that can cover a bigger time frame or offer additional context to breaking news is a valuable part of the journalistic ecosystem

every click on msnow is another death blow for some aspiring journalist that won’t be able to find a job.

Well, this is completely backwards, but at least you care about the right things.

First of all, MS Now linking to other people’s articles is the only way a lot of readers will ever find out about those other articles and publications in the first place. Like, seriously, the idea of a reporter or editor feeling aggrieved because someone else shared their work is nuts.

Second of all, MS Now hires and employs journalists. Even if you think they’re a bottom feeding outfit, some great journalist might start their career their with a summer internship or something. Bottom line is there’s no way in which MS Now getting purity tested out of existence makes things better for journalists or the people who read them.