Big, solid, nuanced take against the 11 page opinion piece.
Maybe tell the other folks reading the same online conversation platform as you are what you thought made this specific link you decided to comment on “garbage”.
I am someone who is against opinion pieces in general, regardless of the content. Nate Silver also has an argument against them: the main difference with an opinion piece and normal journalism is that opinions don’t need to be fact checked. In which case there’s no reason for them to exist. If the argument cannot survive fact checking, it shouldn’t be published.
Opinions, columns, and editorials are all traditional news formats where a known personality gives their take on current events. Basically you can’t “fact check” someone’s commentary because they’re not reporting factual takes on current events, and you can’t really objectively say “your analogy to this historical event is not analogous enough” for instance because there isn’t really measures for these things. Nate Silver’s argument against them is itself an opinion that can’t be fact checked. “Fact checking” itself is also determined by the ideology you’re choosing to determine facts by or even which specific facts are chosen to be highlighted in an article. What is and what ought isn’t something that you can simply fact check.
The fact that it’s “traditional” is not a good reason to keep something around despite the negative consequences. The fact is, most news consumers do not know about the lower editorial standards of opinion articles, so opinion pieces have been a significant source of misinformation. This is how we get Jim Carey writing about climate skepticism in a major newspaper.
What’s so impossible about a fact-checked journalistic article entitled: “Should opinion pieces be eliminated?” Seems possible to me!
I think it’s just a silly proposal that’s hardly worth debating so I can see why it appeals to someone like Nate Silver. The notion that you could control misinformation by removing certain writing styles from circulation is incredibly stupid. Plus on social media everyone is an opinion writer now.
Did you notice how this opinion piece is littered with links sourcing what Kagan is talking about? This article is easily fact-checked. It’s not the author’s fault if you’re not willing to do your due diligence.
Then you are also intellectually lazy, because there is no way you are verifying the truth of every claim made in the articles you read. The role of newspapers is to inform people, not make random claims of dubious truth and have readers “do their own work”. It’s astounding that people are actually against basic fact checking.
You seem to think my objection has something to do with whether it’s obvious that this particular piece is an opinion piece? I have no idea why you think this. Completely bizarre, and what an unnecessarily aggressive tone.
I am against opinion pieces because most consumers do not know that they have lower editorial standards, making them a big source of misinformation. If opinion pieces had the same journalistic standards, I would not be opposed to them.
That sounds like a media literacy problem, not a problem with opinion pieces themselves. I have a degree in journalism and the idea that anyone could somehow not know the difference between a straight news story and an opinion piece is baffling. Do we not have basic critical thinking skills anymore?
Indeed, it’s an empirical fact that most people cannot tell the difference between opinion and news.
Given how many people mistake opinion for news, I don’t think it’s realistic to solve this through media literacy. I think the major reputable outlets need to start applying journalistic standards to opinion pieces, including basic fact checking. I don’t know why anyone would be opposed to that.
No thanks. I do not want to talk about or critique an opinion piece. I want objective political news from this channel. Leave opinion for the comments.
24 hour news networks need to fill their time with opinion pieces. We have plenty of other content in other communities to fall back on. We don’t need filler content promoted here.
It really depends a lot. If it’s something by the editorial board itself, then it’s a very jarring difference. But you can have writers with polar opposite viewpoints in editorials. It used to be nice from a reader perspective to get that variety, but then the right went wacko.
That said, I do think it’s weird the section editor would approve something like “women need to date more conservatives”. Maybe they take the approach of not being responsible for what their authors say, but that crosses enough lines that it’s odd they didn’t step in.
No, these are op-eds, which are written by contributors and are different from editorials which, as the name suggests, are written by the editorial board. Op-eds traditionally were printed opposite of the editorial page --hence the name-- and were meant to be a space for subject matter experts or other thought leaders to publish opinion pieces that may or may not reflect the views of the editorial board.
I know these things because even though I’ve never worked for a newspaper, I am old enough to have gotten an undergrad degree in journalism back in the 90s before the newspaper industry died.
Heh, I should clarify, I’m talking from my experience on my high school paper – which was a damn good paper that we worked our asses off on! But it’s a worthwhile stipulation to make. I’m pretty sure our processes were the same as industry for a lot of things, but I could always be wrong.
Consider it a peek into what’s probably maybe what it’s like. I think it probably does work the way I’ve described, fwiw
Neither of these were written by the WaPo’s editorial board. They are both op-eds meaning they’re written by contributors and in the old print format would be placed opposite from the editorial page, hence the name “op-ed.”
Your comment shows a deep misunderstanding of how these things work and what function newspapers are trying to fulfill with them, but it’s probably not your fault since media literacy tends to be pretty abysmal in the US.
So the editorial staff has no say in what is published in their newspaper? That’s definitely a different view of what the word “editor” means than I’ve had in the past, you’ve got a point there.
Having said that, I got a much less snarky answer explaining some things already, so your sideswipe wasn’t necessary. Thank you sir and I hope the rest of your day is as lovely as you are.
I know these things because even though I’ve never worked for a newspaper, I am old enough to have gotten an undergrad degree in journalism back in the 90s before the newspaper industry died.
Maybe it’s not my abysmal media literacy but the fact that you know these things because you have a degree in journalism. Huh. Guess I’ll find something where you have a less than perfect understanding of my area of expertise or where I’ve had some secondary education, and be sure to point out how abysmal your literacy in that area is.
Same author?
Because papers often run a variety of opinion pieces…
Really wish people would stop posting / up voting garbage opinion pieces here. I want facts, not hot takes.
Big, solid, nuanced take against the 11 page opinion piece.
Maybe tell the other folks reading the same online conversation platform as you are what you thought made this specific link you decided to comment on “garbage”.
I am someone who is against opinion pieces in general, regardless of the content. Nate Silver also has an argument against them: the main difference with an opinion piece and normal journalism is that opinions don’t need to be fact checked. In which case there’s no reason for them to exist. If the argument cannot survive fact checking, it shouldn’t be published.
Opinions, columns, and editorials are all traditional news formats where a known personality gives their take on current events. Basically you can’t “fact check” someone’s commentary because they’re not reporting factual takes on current events, and you can’t really objectively say “your analogy to this historical event is not analogous enough” for instance because there isn’t really measures for these things. Nate Silver’s argument against them is itself an opinion that can’t be fact checked. “Fact checking” itself is also determined by the ideology you’re choosing to determine facts by or even which specific facts are chosen to be highlighted in an article. What is and what ought isn’t something that you can simply fact check.
The fact that it’s “traditional” is not a good reason to keep something around despite the negative consequences. The fact is, most news consumers do not know about the lower editorial standards of opinion articles, so opinion pieces have been a significant source of misinformation. This is how we get Jim Carey writing about climate skepticism in a major newspaper.
What’s so impossible about a fact-checked journalistic article entitled: “Should opinion pieces be eliminated?” Seems possible to me!
I think it’s just a silly proposal that’s hardly worth debating so I can see why it appeals to someone like Nate Silver. The notion that you could control misinformation by removing certain writing styles from circulation is incredibly stupid. Plus on social media everyone is an opinion writer now.
Calling it “silly” and “incredibly stupid” is not an argument. I’m not even sure how to respond to this.
You’re wanting to restrict the styles of writing people can publish, it’s totalitarian in an absurd way.
Moral ought from an is. Just because news sources have decided to put opinion pieces in doesn’t mean that it is right that they did.
Did you notice how this opinion piece is littered with links sourcing what Kagan is talking about? This article is easily fact-checked. It’s not the author’s fault if you’re not willing to do your due diligence.
That’s just intellectually lazy. We should be able to process analysis that isn’t our own.
Then you are also intellectually lazy, because there is no way you are verifying the truth of every claim made in the articles you read. The role of newspapers is to inform people, not make random claims of dubious truth and have readers “do their own work”. It’s astounding that people are actually against basic fact checking.
deleted by creator
You seem to think my objection has something to do with whether it’s obvious that this particular piece is an opinion piece? I have no idea why you think this. Completely bizarre, and what an unnecessarily aggressive tone.
I am against opinion pieces because most consumers do not know that they have lower editorial standards, making them a big source of misinformation. If opinion pieces had the same journalistic standards, I would not be opposed to them.
That sounds like a media literacy problem, not a problem with opinion pieces themselves. I have a degree in journalism and the idea that anyone could somehow not know the difference between a straight news story and an opinion piece is baffling. Do we not have basic critical thinking skills anymore?
Indeed, it’s an empirical fact that most people cannot tell the difference between opinion and news.
Given how many people mistake opinion for news, I don’t think it’s realistic to solve this through media literacy. I think the major reputable outlets need to start applying journalistic standards to opinion pieces, including basic fact checking. I don’t know why anyone would be opposed to that.
deleted by creator
Do my words say that I didn’t notice it was an opinion piece or something? How is this related to your strange diatribe?
deleted by creator
No thanks. I do not want to talk about or critique an opinion piece. I want objective political news from this channel. Leave opinion for the comments.
Who knew only anons had the dibs on writing or speaking their opinions!
24 hour news networks need to fill their time with opinion pieces. We have plenty of other content in other communities to fall back on. We don’t need filler content promoted here.
Hot take: rap rock is inferior to both styles it derives from and the rap in the middle is not as good as the traditional chorus.
Good point and probably not, but I’m too lazy to look right now.
Edited to add: Presumably same editorial team, so the seeming dissonance between the two articles isn’t lessened much by having different authors.
It really depends a lot. If it’s something by the editorial board itself, then it’s a very jarring difference. But you can have writers with polar opposite viewpoints in editorials. It used to be nice from a reader perspective to get that variety, but then the right went wacko.
That said, I do think it’s weird the section editor would approve something like “women need to date more conservatives”. Maybe they take the approach of not being responsible for what their authors say, but that crosses enough lines that it’s odd they didn’t step in.
No, these are op-eds, which are written by contributors and are different from editorials which, as the name suggests, are written by the editorial board. Op-eds traditionally were printed opposite of the editorial page --hence the name-- and were meant to be a space for subject matter experts or other thought leaders to publish opinion pieces that may or may not reflect the views of the editorial board.
I know these things because even though I’ve never worked for a newspaper, I am old enough to have gotten an undergrad degree in journalism back in the 90s before the newspaper industry died.
Oh interesting! I thought it was called op-ed for opinions & editorials
deleted by creator
That’s good to know, thanks. I’ll have to keep a close eye on it. I subscribe to the NYT as well but I’ve been souring on them lately too.
Good points, thanks for the peek into the industry. Without the usual sarcasm I will say you sound like you know what you are talking about. 🙂
Heh, I should clarify, I’m talking from my experience on my high school paper – which was a damn good paper that we worked our asses off on! But it’s a worthwhile stipulation to make. I’m pretty sure our processes were the same as industry for a lot of things, but I could always be wrong.
Consider it a peek into what’s probably maybe what it’s like. I think it probably does work the way I’ve described, fwiw
Nah this is Robert Kagan, a Brookings Institute neocon, Republican who left in 2016, advisor to McCain for his presidential run in 2008.
Neither of these were written by the WaPo’s editorial board. They are both op-eds meaning they’re written by contributors and in the old print format would be placed opposite from the editorial page, hence the name “op-ed.”
Your comment shows a deep misunderstanding of how these things work and what function newspapers are trying to fulfill with them, but it’s probably not your fault since media literacy tends to be pretty abysmal in the US.
So the editorial staff has no say in what is published in their newspaper? That’s definitely a different view of what the word “editor” means than I’ve had in the past, you’ve got a point there.
Having said that, I got a much less snarky answer explaining some things already, so your sideswipe wasn’t necessary. Thank you sir and I hope the rest of your day is as lovely as you are.
Maybe it’s not my abysmal media literacy but the fact that you know these things because you have a degree in journalism. Huh. Guess I’ll find something where you have a less than perfect understanding of my area of expertise or where I’ve had some secondary education, and be sure to point out how abysmal your literacy in that area is.