Iraq through Iraqis' eyes

Well, next time I specifically come across someone who uses the unspecified personal insult trick as an art form, I promise you I'll make sure to roll my eyes at him/her regardless of political persuasion.

0 Replies

LMAO.

<Twasn't serious>

<However, I WILL point them out for you!>
< Wink

>

0 Replies

Nimh writes

Quote:

It's kind of ironic, really. Conservatives claim the MSM journalists offer (liberal) opinion instead of fact. So instead, they've erected a parallel news space that, barring Fox News, mostly doesn't even try to collect its own first-hand info from around the world - but skips straight to the opinionating! From talk radio to columns to blogs, they seem to focus passionately and near-exclusively on applying conservative interpretation, selection and opinion on those dreaded CNN or BBC news items. It's not an alternate news space at all - it's an opinion factory!

I will agree that there are writers of op-ed pieces who provide poorly researched opinions with no backup. There are publications who will publish these pieces purely because they support the ideological bias of the publication. When I have a writer like that identified, I avoid him/her like the plague.

I won't agree that all writers of op-ed pieces are not usually experienced reporters who put their credibility on the line with the op-ed pieces they write and, because they have more time to write them, they almost always put additional time into the research of the facts they write. You're talking about my field of discipline now and I'm speaking from a 'been there - done that - trashed the T-shirt' mode. The modern news story cannot be assumed to be better researched or more accurate than the average op-ed piece.

Here on A2K the fastest way for a conservative to get jumped on--very often in the most insulting manner possible short of TOS violations--is to express an opinion without backing it up by something that is copied and pasted from the internet. This is unfortunate as a great many A2K members have knowledge and experience and know things that are not easily found, copied, and/or pasted from the internet and quite often the member's information/knowledge/understanding is superior to anything s/he can find to back it up. But nevertheless, we sometimes find something - anything - to copy and paste just so we can express the opinions that we hold.

I maintain that the intellectually honest can consider the source when deciding the validity of an argument, but a member's opinion won't be dismissed out of hand or held in contempt because the best data s/he could find was contained in an op-ed piece or that s/he was especially intrigued by a particular point of view expressed in one.

0 Replies

I'll have to agree, though, that some here (thankfully I can say not currently on this thread) have a habit of asserting a point, and then using a stupid op-ed as their "proof". I never mind seeing an interesting article--but, unless you are backing up the assertion that something was said--and NOT the veracity of the statement you're trying to prove--don't point to an op-ed piece.

Most of the factual assertions made in an op-ed can be backed up by a less biased source.

0 Replies

But not always. I would put Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, George Will, William Raspberry, and at least two dozen others, both liberal and conservative, up against almost anything put out there by Reuters or the AP or any of the more conventional news sources.

0 Replies

You're too nice nimh, I'd have replaced the word "opinion" with "propaganda". That's the real crux of the issue isn't it?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Most of the factual assertions made in an op-ed can be backed up by a less biased source.

Absolute BS. Most Op-ed column are DEVOID of fact, hence the name op-ed.

0 Replies

sources such as "an unpublished study shows-----" cited as verification of "facts" is little more than blather.

0 Replies

Joe Republican wrote:

Lash wrote:

Most of the factual assertions made in an op-ed can be backed up by a less biased source.

Absolute BS. Most Op-ed column are DEVOID of fact, hence the name op-ed.

Read the post you quoted from again and see if you still think it's BS. Rolling Eyes

Next, I recommend apologizing for your BS. :wink:

0 Replies

Joe Republican wrote:

Lash wrote:

Most of the factual assertions made in an op-ed can be backed up by a less biased source.

Absolute BS. Most Op-ed column are DEVOID of fact, hence the name op-ed.

You obviously didn't read accurately.

I'll re-state. If an op-ed writer asserts something as a fact--you'll be able to support it with a less-biased source--if it is accurate.

0 Replies

I wonder though, where do we find these unbiased sources these days Lash? I haven't found any unbiased sources in the last decade or so, but there are some sources who practice honesty, good research, and reasoned analysis.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I wonder though, where do we find these unbiased sources these days Lash? I haven't found any unbiased sources in the last decade or so, but there are some sources who practice honesty, good research, and reasoned analysis.

I can only those you mention were educated by liberal professors.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I'll have to agree, though, that some here (thankfully I can say not currently on this thread) have a habit of asserting a point, and then using a stupid op-ed as their "proof". I never mind seeing an interesting article--but, unless you are backing up the assertion that something was said--and NOT the veracity of the statement you're trying to prove--don't point to an op-ed piece.

Quite. And much more concise too. And it would even hold true if the op-ed in question was not "stupid". Thanks Lash.

0 Replies

But what if the op-ed piece is where you found the sources for the hard data? Then is it permissable?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But what if the op-ed piece is where you found the sources for the hard data? Then is it permissable?

such as "an unpublished study"?

0 Replies

I believe it was billed as a soon-to-be-published study, which would suggest it had been accepted for publication. A fine distinction I realize, but an important one nevertheless.

0 Replies

Have a straw.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But what if the op-ed piece is where you found the sources for the hard data? Then is it permissable?

Depends. If you mean that the op-ed writer observes or asserts the same thing as you, and you propose that as the confirmation of the truth of your statement, then no (imho). Someone else saying the same thing doesnt make it true, not even if it is a highly respected someone. If the op-ed writer actually specifies and presents the source for his assertions - the hard data or the "raw material", so to say, then ...

... I would look it up and form my own opinion about it, if I were you, doublechecking whether, when confronted with "the original", you take the same thing from it as he does.

0 Replies

Mind you, its all a question of doing things with moderation. It's not like I never quote an opinion piece, when I consider it particularly thought-provoking. It's just that when you look at A2K threads, particularly the copy/pastes with which entire new threads are begun, it sometimes seems they are all opinion pieces and columns. Or at least, in my perception, those started by the most prolific conservative posters. And these pieces aren't critically reviewed either - it's not like, hey this is an interesting take, what pros and cons could you come up with about it -- no, they're brandished about as the rhetorical bludgeon one apparently couldnt construct onself - as in: "Hell yeah! See, you people!?"

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But what if the op-ed piece is where you found the sources for the hard data? Then is it permissable?

This has happened to me -- any op-ed columnist worth his/ her salt will refer to the source of his/ her hard data. So bypass the op-ed columnist (acknowledge that he/she brought your attention to the hard data if you'd like) and go to the source.

0 Replies

Iraq through Iraqis' eyes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know