> No, op-ed pieces by there very nature are not subject to editorial review. Anyone is free to right one. And it is quite common to have editorials with opposing views published opposite each other in the Ed Op section. Saying that ed-op pieces have a "slant" is absurd. The entire purpose of an editorial is to express the views of an individual.
I specifically said "volume and slant" not just "slant". Combined, they have value. I don't know why you chose just one part.
> No the New York Times actually a physical news paper that you can buy at a newsstand. I did so yesterday. It is also a newspaper of record.
That is not as related to their website as you are making it seem. I even cautioned against pretending they're the same and you did it again.
> The Cambridge Analytica scandal came to light because Christopher Wylie blew the whistle and began speaking about it. I would very much consider that a human driving a dialog.
I specifically said "at this point". I don't know why you are talking about when it started.
I specifically said "volume and slant" not just "slant". Combined, they have value. I don't know why you chose just one part.
> No the New York Times actually a physical news paper that you can buy at a newsstand. I did so yesterday. It is also a newspaper of record.
That is not as related to their website as you are making it seem. I even cautioned against pretending they're the same and you did it again.
> The Cambridge Analytica scandal came to light because Christopher Wylie blew the whistle and began speaking about it. I would very much consider that a human driving a dialog.
I specifically said "at this point". I don't know why you are talking about when it started.