3 ms·

If this is the article you're talking about: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/opinion/jeff-sessions-other-civil-rights-problem.html http://www.nytimes.com/201

by untog 10y ago

If this is the article you're talking about: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/opinion/jeff-sessions-other-civil-rights-problem.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/opinion/jeff-sessions-othe... It's an opinion piece, so neither is it written by the New York Times, nor is it surprising that the author might be "inserting opinions".

ewzimm 10y ago
I never said anything about it not being an opinion piece, just that it's published by the media. It's just a great example of how you can use words and repetition to create an association without actually accusing someone of something and leave out facts which might be important. It's an especially good example because it is an opinion piece. It checks facts, cites sources, and presents a lot of evidence instead of just giving a straightforward opinion. All these facts give legitimacy to the implications. Instead of making the article more objective, they enhance the bias.
- nkurz 10y ago
  For example, the New York Times recently wrote an article about Jeff Sessions' civil rights issue with schools. I never said anything about it not being an opinion piece, just that it's published by the media. I agree with your original critique, but writing "the New York Times recently wrote an article" is not saying "just that it's published by the media". Whether or not an opinion piece is sufficient to make your point, you said the NYT wrote it, it turns out that they did not, but you are claiming that despite this you were right all along. Don't do that!
  - ewzimm 10y ago
    I'm sorry. I honestly didn't even realize I worded it that way, and that's totally justifiable to call out. It was meant to flow from inserting opinions to an example of an opinion that used facts to push an agenda, but it was sloppy wording on my part.
pdeuchler 10y ago
And with the advent of "fake news" censorship that distinction will almost entirely vanish for the average consumer, as the two tiers of news will become "trusted by authority" and "fake". I highly doubt any NYT opinion columns will be flagged as "fake" under any classification designed by Google/Facebook/Microsoft et al.

by untog 10y ago

ewzimm 10y ago

I never said anything about it not being an opinion piece, just that it's published by the media. It's just a great example of how you can use words and repetition to create an association without actually accusing someone of something and leave out facts which might be important. It's an especially good example because it is an opinion piece. It checks facts, cites sources, and presents a lot of evidence instead of just giving a straightforward opinion. All these facts give legitimacy to the implications. Instead of making the article more objective, they enhance the bias.

nkurz 10y ago
For example, the New York Times recently wrote an article about Jeff Sessions' civil rights issue with schools. I never said anything about it not being an opinion piece, just that it's published by the media. I agree with your original critique, but writing "the New York Times recently wrote an article" is not saying "just that it's published by the media". Whether or not an opinion piece is sufficient to make your point, you said the NYT wrote it, it turns out that they did not, but you are claiming that despite this you were right all along. Don't do that!
- ewzimm 10y ago
  I'm sorry. I honestly didn't even realize I worded it that way, and that's totally justifiable to call out. It was meant to flow from inserting opinions to an example of an opinion that used facts to push an agenda, but it was sloppy wording on my part.

pdeuchler 10y ago

And with the advent of "fake news" censorship that distinction will almost entirely vanish for the average consumer, as the two tiers of news will become "trusted by authority" and "fake". I highly doubt any NYT opinion columns will be flagged as "fake" under any classification designed by Google/Facebook/Microsoft et al.