Footnotes are, here in the third decade of 21st century, generally disfavored.
But for something like 150 years now, footnotes have played a big role in deterring fake information and fabricated history. Footnotes force the author to provide his sources right there, on the same page (or, in the case of endnotes, within the same covers).
As one historiographer put it:
"The critical reader requires a more explicit guarantee of the truth of a statement in the text than is afforded by the blanket authority or reputation of the author. THE FOOTNOTE AFFORDS THIS GUARANTEE BY INDICATING THE SOURCES OR AUTHORITY ON WHICH THE TRUTH OF THE PARTICULAR STATEMENT IS BASED."
GILBERT J. GARRAGHAN, A GUIDE TO HISTORICAL METHOD (N.Y.: Fordham University Press, 1946) (emphasis added).
Podcasts are great, but there are no footnotes accompanying them. Ditto for tweets. And for all written or printed material, we need not only footnotes but also a whole lot more "critical readers"!
