Links to the source material and commentards please
If an article is badly wrong (or annoyingly right) there will be complaints from the commentards. The better commentards will provide links to support their position. Even without links, commentards can point out where to look further, or what sort of things commentards missunderstand. One of the thing I like about the Register is that most of the journalists are prepared to have criticism tacked onto their articles. The criticism is a mixture of incoherent drivel, attempts at humour, valid questions, useful answers, and sometimes evidence for what is really going on.
I like journalists to give their opinions. I can decide for myself whether those opinions are derived from bias, ignorance or insight. It is much easier to reach those conclusions when there are links to the source material. I can hunt down a particular draft EU directive, but it is much easier if the journalist provides the link he used for his research.
If Alice says the battle of Hastings was in 1066, and Bob says it was in 1076 that does not mean the right year was 1071. If a journalist provides a link to the appropriates articles in The Times and The Sun for 1066-10-14 then Bob and editorial balance should be filed in the bin.