But claiming some opinions are verboten or others must be accepted as fact rapidly destroys any historical reputation for a media organization.
It’s gotten so bad that a the NYT apologized for letting a sitting US Senator (Tom Cotton)[1] publish an op-ed that diverged with the views of its subscribers.
I might think that Senator Warren is an idiot, but I have no issue with her expressing her stupidity.
> It’s gotten so bad that a the NYT apologized for letting a sitting US Senator (Tom Cotton)[1] publish an op-ed that diverged with the views of its subscribers.
I think The Times knows that their revenue comes from people "picking a side", not from people looking for unbiased news. That's because it's easier to cultivate a fanbase than it is to hope that there is interesting news. Most days are boring -- you only get a blockbuster exclusive story once a decade.
Banning opinions for “things that are illegal” would ban everything from discussion about drug legalization to same sex marriage. The current legal status of a topic has no bearing on whether someone can make a cogent argument for or against it. Things that are illegal likely deserve more public forum for thought and discussion.
This is a glaringly bad faith interpretation of my post. You know what I meant - an op-ed featuring say a pro-pedophilia stance should not be published in a national media. This is not "discussion" or "public forum".
Respectfully, and with kindness not provocation: This "you know what I meant" sensibility, when many people don't know what you mean or simply have very different bedrock views that must first be engaged with and laboured on (if not you, then by someone) -- I feel this is part of the chilling effect of the view you're espousing here, and which others are downvoting you for <3
To clarify, i am not talking about pedophilia here, but other "obvious" things
Well I can't really agree here, I would think that Occam's Razor for me getting downvoted for saying that "Media companies should not be hosting op-ed articles like 'pedophilia is good'" is pretty clear at least to me. If that's a "chilling view" then, well, ABOLISH ICE. :)
>> Banning opinions for “things that are illegal” would ban everything from discussion about drug legalization to same sex marriage.
> This is a glaringly bad faith interpretation of my post. You know what I meant - an op-ed featuring say a pro-pedophilia stance should not be published in a national media.
I'm really curious how you're distinguishing pro-pedophilia op-eds from pro-same-sex-marriage op-eds. Is it just that one is bad and one is good? How do you know which is which?
Curious, why should a private company be forced to post op-eds from viewpoints that their editorial board has decided are against their editorial guidelines?
What other things should the government force a private company or that matter a citizen to say or not say?
It looks like your account has been using HN primarily for ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of which ideology they're battling for or against, because it's not what this site is for. Moreover it destroys what it is for, so we have little choice if we want HN to survive for its intended purpose.
I want fewer opinions in any publication I'm paying for news reports. I also pay for entertainment, and even to read someone's opinion, but these are separate products for separate purposes. The revenue model is really beside the point.
Opinion-infested reports where the writer is casting aspersions, making judgements, serving vanguard for some cause or presenting the writer's own opinion as part of the narrative are worthless to me. It's fine to have opinions as long as 1. that is what you are intending to sell and 2. you acknowledge this and are upfront about it.
Opinions backed by facts would be fine.
If someone explains why he has the opinion he has then I can agree/disagree/provide a better reasoning for another opinion etc.
But most of the opinions voiced are either not backed by anything or backed by one of the most common logical fallacy.
It's not just that, opinions are intertwined with (often) cherry picked facts in such a way that it blurs the line between them.
When writing in a style that I'd closely associate with how I'd like journalism written, I often find myself taking the beginning few sentences/paragraph to explain the facts of the situation as I understand it and the rest on what I think about it or why I think it occurred, etc.
I write this way because I am very open to corrections on the facts and my opinions may change wildly if those facts are corrected or updated so stated the basis for my thoughts up front helps provide context. My opinions and explanations are a lot less malleable if the facts don't change. I'm open to expanding and discussing my opinions but they usually evolve rather than fully change.
It's hard for me to really speculate on the driving force or the motive behind what we see in journalism today (or whether it's new) but it's very clear to me that the intent of the articles written don't seem to be clarity between fact and opinion.
The classic is "backed by statistics" so both sides pick the statistics that confirms their opinion.
Last seen just these days in US media about guns/gun crime/shootings etc. etc. There are so many statistics which all define mass shootings however they want and its super easy to find the "facts" you need for whatever point you wanna bring across.
