4 ms·

They definitely inserted an opinion. The bit I quoted gave the reader nothing new. It conveyed no information other than the personal and uninteresting views of

by c3534l 9y ago

They definitely inserted an opinion. The bit I quoted gave the reader nothing new. It conveyed no information other than the personal and uninteresting views of the author. Had that section been removed, the reader would know precisely the same amount of information they had before they got to that point. It was not a viewpoint, it was an opinion (and a childish one at that), which was inserted into an article which seems to present itself as describing a study.

xkjkls 9y ago
Why? It offered an interesting, alternative interpretation of the same data. That seems valuable. In a normal journalism article this same opinion would probably be offered in the form of a quote by some competing economist, instead of directly, but the effect is the same.
- c3534l 9y ago
  It wasn't based on the data. Nothing in the study suggested that opinion. It's simply the statement of a narrative. That's part of why I specifically mentioned "unsourced." The claim doesn't follow from anything the article meant to cover.
  - wpietri 9y ago
    The article contextualized the study in a broader base of knowledge. That's part of why they're so valuable to readers: they just don't rewrite the study's abstract; they write about the study from the viewpoint of somebody who knows the topic and can connect this one item to a broader understanding.
barrkel 9y ago
It conveyed no information other than the personal and uninteresting views of the author. Do you think globalisation has not rewarded capital more than labour? Do you think globalisation has not made it easier for wealthy people to hide their assets from governments? Because I think both statements are factually accurate, not opinion. The only bit that was "opinion" was the suggestion that the reader should perhaps be surprised. It doesn't seem a stretch. My references: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/3-charts-that-explain-global-inequality/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/3-charts-that-explain... https://understandingsociety.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/tyler-cowan-on-global-inequality.html https://understandingsociety.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/tyler-co... I'm using growing income inequality as a proxy for rewarding capital vs rewarding labour. It's well-known to everyone that middle-classes in Western countries have had the rawest deal from globalisation, and that large populations in poorer countries have seen large relative increases. But that isn't the same thing as saying that globalisation benefits labour more than capital; it doesn't. It also isn't a judgement as to whether globalisation is good or bad; overall, I think it's a good thing, we're better off with fewer poor people globally.
wpietri 9y ago
That's definitely not true. The first two sentences are clearly statements of fact. The third is pointing out something interesting. In the "view from nowhere" style, a journalist would get quotes from experts to make those points. But The Economist writes as an expert. They work from a clearly established and frankly declared viewpoint. That's why people read them If you believe their facts are wrong, you should demonstrate that. Indeed, they regularly print letters from people claiming that. But as far as I can tell, you just don't like their viewpoint.

by c3534l 9y ago

xkjkls 9y ago

Why? It offered an interesting, alternative interpretation of the same data. That seems valuable. In a normal journalism article this same opinion would probably be offered in the form of a quote by some competing economist, instead of directly, but the effect is the same.

c3534l 9y ago
It wasn't based on the data. Nothing in the study suggested that opinion. It's simply the statement of a narrative. That's part of why I specifically mentioned "unsourced." The claim doesn't follow from anything the article meant to cover.
- wpietri 9y ago
  The article contextualized the study in a broader base of knowledge. That's part of why they're so valuable to readers: they just don't rewrite the study's abstract; they write about the study from the viewpoint of somebody who knows the topic and can connect this one item to a broader understanding.

barrkel 9y ago

It conveyed no information other than the personal and uninteresting views of the author. Do you think globalisation has not rewarded capital more than labour? Do you think globalisation has not made it easier for wealthy people to hide their assets from governments? Because I think both statements are factually accurate, not opinion. The only bit that was "opinion" was the suggestion that the reader should perhaps be surprised. It doesn't seem a stretch. My references: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/3-charts-that-explain-global-inequality/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/3-charts-that-explain... https://understandingsociety.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/tyler-cowan-on-global-inequality.html https://understandingsociety.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/tyler-co... I'm using growing income inequality as a proxy for rewarding capital vs rewarding labour. It's well-known to everyone that middle-classes in Western countries have had the rawest deal from globalisation, and that large populations in poorer countries have seen large relative increases. But that isn't the same thing as saying that globalisation benefits labour more than capital; it doesn't. It also isn't a judgement as to whether globalisation is good or bad; overall, I think it's a good thing, we're better off with fewer poor people globally.

wpietri 9y ago

That's definitely not true. The first two sentences are clearly statements of fact. The third is pointing out something interesting. In the "view from nowhere" style, a journalist would get quotes from experts to make those points. But The Economist writes as an expert. They work from a clearly established and frankly declared viewpoint. That's why people read them If you believe their facts are wrong, you should demonstrate that. Indeed, they regularly print letters from people claiming that. But as far as I can tell, you just don't like their viewpoint.