"Links to" has no legal definition and no journalistic standard. It can mean a person was a dues-paying member of an organization — or that they once liked a post by someone who later did something newsworthy. It manufactures association without proving it, and because it sounds factual, readers rarely stop to ask the obvious questions.
Ask this
What kind of link, exactly? How direct? Verified how? If the story would say nothing specific, the "link" is doing work it hasn't earned.
Primary-source sourcing standard; see our editorial standards at /ethics.
More decodes
“Can [X] cause [Y]?”
When a health headline asks a question, the answer is almost always "no."
“Ties to”
Same energy as “links to” — zero specificity.
“Sources say”
Anonymous and unverifiable — “sources” can be one person with an agenda.
“Failed to respond”
Implies guilt — but sometimes the deadline was 20 minutes ago.
“Raised questions”
Who raised them? Often the reporter — sometimes one person.
“Some are saying”
The oldest trick in the book — unnamed “some” can be almost no one.
“Controversial”
Often just means someone, somewhere, complained.
“Amid concerns”
Whose concerns? Never specified.
“Officials say”
Which officials? From where? On the record?
“Is believed to”
Believed by whom? The grammar hides the source.