I try to link to corrections—I present as evidence my links to criticism of a favourite writer of mine, which, while not a correction per se, can act as such because it shows the writer to be less trustworthy than previously imagined—but efforts still need to be doubled in that respect. It's disingenuous to link to or cite something, and then read of a correction (which you believe to be an accurate one: the correction itself must be evaluated on its own terms), and not link to the correction. Jay's right: I'm more likely to trust a blogger who will, when something they've linked to—especially something that would help make a political point for them—notes that a correction has been made and incorporates that into the body of evidence that informs their opinion. Admitting that there exists evidence that tends to counter your argument can be a surprisingly powerful way to win an argument.

An effective blogger or journalist also gives some attention to opinions or facts that tend to counter their opinions. There's no need for equal weight to be given, but linking, even if it's in criticism of something, but I'm more likely to trust someone who points to their enemies and then criticizes them, because it avoids—or at least gives people the opportunity to expose—straw man fallacies. Your case against someone's idea improves when you link to it, so that the reader can judge for themselves whether you've quoted something in the right context.