Firstly, I think this is a possibility because of the way I write articles for this blog. Let's take this quick example.

Look at this posting. It is essentially a paraphrase of an article in the Guardian apart from the last paragraph which is my own commentary. There are two links to background information in the short paragraph, one at "third largest newspaper" and one at the term "solid proof."

The way the paragraph is written, I should explain myself better. I should give the statistics for and names of the two journals ahead of "third largest newspaper." I should also cite which studies have not found any negative correlation between free paper distribution and paid-for sales. Instead, I have avoided these details by adding links to the articles with the relevant information.

Now consider what you've just read. If you clicked on the "this posting" link above, you noticed that it appeared in another window. With the smallest bit of computer savvy, you could put the window with this posting next to the hyperlinked window, referring to the hyperlink while following my above description.

Secondly, I think hyperlinking could change the way newspaper journalists write just for the simple fact that it exists. As of now, it has not, but its use is growing. Lets take three quick examples of how newspapers are using hyperlinks differently. 

Here's a random article from the New York Times. Notice that several names are highlighted and underlined. When you click on these links, they bring you to another New York Times page with a list of articles related to the name you click.

Here's a random article from the Washington Post. The text of the article itself does not contain any links, (obviously it was originally written for the printed paper), but in the side bar are numerous links to background information concerning the article, including graphics and video.

Here's a random article from Wired Magazine. This journalist uses outside links to what he is describing in his article, not only explaining the situation to readers, but also letting them easily see for themselves.

I have noticed other examples, such as NYT's columnists who began linking to outside sources which only makes sense, since their blogging counterparts do the same. Also, WaPo's Dan Froomkin on his blog and Howard Kurtz use links well.

But the real affect that hyperlinking could have on writing styles can be seen by following one story over weeks, months or years.

Which brings us back to the Washington Post article which is about the Valerie Plame leak investigation. The article covers a new development in the case which has been going on for over two years. The article has nine paragraphs. The first four are new information. The last five, apart from one sentence, are background information that anyone that has followed the story would know.

For the printed paper, all nine paragraphs are necessary because WaPo can not know if everyone who buys the paper is aware of the story's history.

But online, these five paragraphs can be avoided by hyperlinking the story's background for readers new to it. For those that know the story, scanning the last five paragraphs for the one sentence of new information is not very economical time wise for today's busy reader. 

Obviously, newspaper journalism has been written with repeated background information forever, packaged in short, to the point, easily scan-able paragraphs. It is probable that if its style changes to fit the hyperlinking phenom, some will argue that newspaper journalism will become diluted and "dumbed-down" to fit ever-faster paced modern lifestyles.

On the other hand, if newspapers build background information pages to major stories complete with archives, infographics and video to which their journalists can link instead of having them accompany each new development with background info, it might provide all types of readers with more enjoyable reading experiences. Newcomers to stories would still have access to all the history they need, whereas those already informed would save precious seconds by not having to read background they have already gone over numerous times.

Sources: New York Times, Washington Post, Wired Magazine