That was my point, rather than research a topic and give the reader/viewer hard facts, major "news" orgs bring in opinion panels that degrade the conversation and add nothing of value.
If hard facts don't exist, you can interview someone for their opinion and attribute it to them. Just putting your own opinion in the text isn't reporting, it is an opinion piece. Mixing the two just seems lazy.
You're wrong, I agree with most of their opinions. I don't like the way they present them with appeal to emotion, speculation, and opinion woven into their reporting. It's unnecessary and a turnoff to those who don't share their opinions who might be otherwise swayed by the facts.
Yes. I actually stopped reading "news" and I only read people's opinions. Opinions are much more concise and it's far more informative to read two opposing opinions than to read one long meandering piece that tries to avoid having an opinion. The recipe for "news" at the NYT is an exhausting example of this:
"Some decision was made. Someone important said it was good b/c of A but others say it is bad b/c of B. 10 years ago when a similar decision was made, A was the result. But on the other hand it is very hard to measure B, and it's effects can be mitigated by C. An expert acknowledged the risk of B but said that the benefits of A made it worth it."
Usually the reporter's actual opinion was whatever side he gave the last word. In this case A. I find it tedious to play this passive aggressive game. I would rather read two articles saying:
This decision is good b/c of A.
and
This decision is bad b/c of B.
Like Arrington said, at least I know where they stand and why.
I’ve found that thoughtful opinions are best sampled on an individual to individual basis and not easily found by reading articles from a news organization.
News orgs are rushing to print the story and (at most) only include small tidbits of reactionary analysis. It isn’t the fault of the individual as much as it is the medium. The medium inherently lacks depth.
I would hate to rely on newspapers for any topic. You can tell the writer has limited knowledge and you couldn't get enough info here to have an opinion that wasn't anything more than noise
Again, you're missing the point. Most publications (newspapers etc. that also publish hard news) indicate that it is an opinion right in the title of the article so that there is no mistaking it.
If you’re going to encounter opinion-based editorializing anyway, there are probably worse sources than one with an overly well informed investigative journalism editorial board.
> I've seen that one commonly in the mainstream left-leaning media.
Out of interest, in news reports or in opinion pieces? I wish newspapers did away with opinion sections, they serve no good purpose and cloud what news reporting actually is. I'd be interested to read the justification a news organisation gives for stating something like that as fact and not opinion.
"Appropriate speculation" isn't spouting off about a pet agenda a particular news outlet has or shoehorning it into whatever #popularbullshit is trending, it's about a logical conclusion to new information. Opinion pieces take that and twist it to their own bias and quite often into an inflammatory way.
Too many outlets use opinion pieces as fact and engage in public outraging by selecting the most controversial, inflammatory, or biased stories and opinions to get viewership. Hell, you don't have to look far for them claiming not to be news but "Entertainment News" and frankly, it's insulting. News used to have standards. Unfortunately it scrapes the bottom of the barrel.
the opinions of ignorant journalists are not really relevant. it was strongly criticized by experts in the relevant area. do you realize how intellectually lazy you look when you form strong opinions on subjects without even doing basic research first?
reply