The New York Times aggregates in many of their articles such as the one I recently read on how the benefit of caffeine on one’s physical performance is dictated by their genes.
In order to support the stance on caffeine the Times took, they aggregated sources in order to present credibility and logos.
One of these aggregated sources is linked under the words, “a new study of the genetics of caffeine metabolism,” which brings readers to a scholarly journal abstract which summed up the research done on the effects of caffeine beside different types of genes. This is a reliable and informative source which improves on the article itself.
Another aggregated source is linked back to an article The New York Times wrote on the buzz caffeine could give different people depending on their genes. This source roughly covers the same topic, but doesn’t involve the physical performance aspect, which makes it a strong choice as a source to aggregate because with it comes another variety of supportive information.
Overall, I think The New York Times put together a good aggregated article that expressed ideas and information while backing it up with different sources.
Online Reporting, Research & Writing 