WSJ.com Elegant and effective: The Wall Street Journal opted to link directly to Clinton's candidacy site in the body of its story today.

Earlier I mentioned how, in the upcoming presidential race, candidates' sites are becoming more important than ever. Since big news is breaking on those sites directly to the public, it makes sense to link directly to those sites from news stories.

...Or so I would think. However, this morning as I checked out how several major news organizations covered Senator Hillary Clinton's announcement that she's running for president, I was intrigued to see who did and didn't link directly to the announcement video, which appears on Clinton's candidacy site:

• NPR mentioned the video, but didn't link to Clinton's site.
• This widely republished AP story included no links.
• The Los Angeles Times included a sidebar link to Clinton's candidacy site.
• The Wall Street Journal directly to Clinton's candidacy site from its story. (Subscription required; see screenshot above.)
• Lynn Sweet's Chicago Sun-Times blog post about this news included Clinton's announcement URL -- but strangely, this is not a live link.

Here's what I suggest: If you're covering news that's breaking or supported by content on a political site, blog, forum, or wiki, include relevant links in the body of those stories. This approach to linking, rather than segregating links into a sidebar or at the bottom, offers ample opportunities to gracefully indicate why you're providing that link.

washingtonpost.com Weird ad context: When washingtonpost.com reposted Hillary Clinton's video announcing her presidential candidacy, it was preceded by a non-optional and bizarre Microsoft commercial featuring live snakes.

Since Clinton's announcement was made by online video, this presented an additional level of complexity to linking. For instance, Fox News simply linked directly to Clinton's video. But CNN reposted the entire announcement video on its site -- an approach that might pose even greater ethical concerns than simply linking to it. The Washington Post also ran Clinton's video on its site. However, this morning that video was preceded by a snake-infested Microsoft commercial which was just, well, weird. Talk about strange context!

How did your online news organization handle links or video for this story? What discussions did you have, which decisions were made, and why? Please comment below.