It is also meant to lessen the legal burden: when they don't link to primary source, nobody can claim the is inaccurate, missing essential facts or made up.
I can’t comment on this as I don’t know the case-law well, but I’m struggling to understand how citing but not linking to a source lessens the ability of anyone to make claims about accuracy, whether in a court of law or in the court of public opinion. Can you provide details?
This is an editorial decision and not something individual reporters get to decide. Headlines are the same.