3 ms·

Policies of an outlet can be determined by volume and slant, even op-eds. Opinion pieces help drive a narrative that regular stories do as well. It's not like,

Policies of an outlet can be determined by volume and slant, even op-eds. Opinion pieces help drive a narrative that regular stories do as well. It's not like, to view NYT's ads, you knew the article you were visiting. They're next to each other in search engine results. This isn't on a site named nytimesopinion.com. The sheer volume of articles now, regardless of whether you tell people they are in different forms, are there to drive views and, when categorized by topics, build the momentum to view more on all sides of the paper. This is not the print days of old. They are using all sections to obtain eyes and calling most of them news. Pretending what are basically blogs with official seals as what used to be print pieces ignores the sheer volume and collective value they have nowadays. The noise is much too large to compare to the past. > Facebook has been a regular part of the news cycle precisely because it is so central to an ongoing dialog regarding privacy, regulatory regimes and the power of a single corporate entity. Disagree. The news cycle is driving the dialog at this point, not responding to it. It's clear in the vast number of sustanceless articles. The disturbing part is that you accept your pitchfork, bow, and parrot these views while telling others what they have to learn before they can be critical.

bogomipz 8y ago
>"Policies of an outlet can be determined by volume and slant, even op-eds" No, op-ed pieces by there very nature are not subject to editorial review. Anyone is free to right one. And it is quite common to have editorials with opposing views published opposite each other in the Ed Op section. Saying that ed-op pieces have a "slant" is absurd. The entire purpose of an editorial is to express the views of an individual. >"This is not the print days of old." No the New York Times actually a physical news paper that you can buy at a newsstand. I did so yesterday. It is also a newspaper of record. >"The news cycle is driving the dialog at this point, not responding to it." The Cambridge Analytica scandal came to light because Christopher Wylie blew the whistle and began speaking about it. I would very much consider that a human driving a dialog.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > No, op-ed pieces by there very nature are not subject to editorial review. Anyone is free to right one. And it is quite common to have editorials with opposing views published opposite each other in the Ed Op section. Saying that ed-op pieces have a "slant" is absurd. The entire purpose of an editorial is to express the views of an individual. I specifically said "volume and slant" not just "slant". Combined, they have value. I don't know why you chose just one part. > No the New York Times actually a physical news paper that you can buy at a newsstand. I did so yesterday. It is also a newspaper of record. That is not as related to their website as you are making it seem. I even cautioned against pretending they're the same and you did it again. > The Cambridge Analytica scandal came to light because Christopher Wylie blew the whistle and began speaking about it. I would very much consider that a human driving a dialog. I specifically said "at this point". I don't know why you are talking about when it started.

bogomipz 8y ago

>"Policies of an outlet can be determined by volume and slant, even op-eds" No, op-ed pieces by there very nature are not subject to editorial review. Anyone is free to right one. And it is quite common to have editorials with opposing views published opposite each other in the Ed Op section. Saying that ed-op pieces have a "slant" is absurd. The entire purpose of an editorial is to express the views of an individual. >"This is not the print days of old." No the New York Times actually a physical news paper that you can buy at a newsstand. I did so yesterday. It is also a newspaper of record. >"The news cycle is driving the dialog at this point, not responding to it." The Cambridge Analytica scandal came to light because Christopher Wylie blew the whistle and began speaking about it. I would very much consider that a human driving a dialog.

kodablah 8y ago
> No, op-ed pieces by there very nature are not subject to editorial review. Anyone is free to right one. And it is quite common to have editorials with opposing views published opposite each other in the Ed Op section. Saying that ed-op pieces have a "slant" is absurd. The entire purpose of an editorial is to express the views of an individual. I specifically said "volume and slant" not just "slant". Combined, they have value. I don't know why you chose just one part. > No the New York Times actually a physical news paper that you can buy at a newsstand. I did so yesterday. It is also a newspaper of record. That is not as related to their website as you are making it seem. I even cautioned against pretending they're the same and you did it again. > The Cambridge Analytica scandal came to light because Christopher Wylie blew the whistle and began speaking about it. I would very much consider that a human driving a dialog. I specifically said "at this point". I don't know why you are talking about when it started.