this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
441 points (83.8% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2868 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] banneryear1868@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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!

[–] banneryear1868@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Calling it “silly” and “incredibly stupid” is not an argument. I’m not even sure how to respond to this.

[–] banneryear1868@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

You're wanting to restrict the styles of writing people can publish, it's totalitarian in an absurd way.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's just intellectually lazy. We should be able to process analysis that isn't our own.

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 2 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)
[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world -4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)
[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Do my words say that I didn’t notice it was an opinion piece or something? How is this related to your strange diatribe?

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world -3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)
[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What? I’m sorry I hurt your feelings but I don’t really understand what you’re so angry about.

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

deleted by creator