4 ms·

I'm so tired of this. No, it's not an excuse to say "It's fine this guy is writing misleading politically motivated drivel, other people do it too!". Firstly I

I'm so tired of this. No, it's not an excuse to say "It's fine this guy is writing misleading politically motivated drivel, other people do it too!". Firstly I don't care what other people do, and secondly go take a look at that website's about page - > The Free Press is a new media company founded by Bari Weiss and built on the ideals that once were the bedrock of great journalism: honesty, doggedness, and fierce independence. This rag isn't just publishing activist nonsense as investigative journalism, it's doing so whilst actively trying to sell itself as adhering to higher standards than everyone else. Slipping in that you're a motivated activist 90% of the way into the article is dodgy as hell, and it goes a long way to explaining some of the extremely weird logic early in the article. Test strips for Fentanyl are apparently bad? Well if you want to focus on solutions to the actual problem, you've missed the point - they're bad because they are a practical alternative to the reheated 1980s "Just Say No" movement the author is trying to push. This article would've been fine as an opinion peice but pretending it's real journalism is just disingenuous and actively makes me question even the basic facts of the article.

wakawaka28 3y ago
I don't think it's a secret that this is an opinion piece. Do you really need a warning about that when the dude says right up front that he is in a charity dealing with the issue? >I'm so tired of this. No, it's not an excuse to say "It's fine this guy is writing misleading politically motivated drivel, other people do it too!". Firstly I don't care what other people do, and secondly go take a look at that website's about page - I don't care what the site's about page says either. News sites publish opinion all the time, and it doesn't take much of a sleuth to figure it out. It sounds like you are only itching to discredit this for other reasons, like you approve of drugs and also hate people who hate drugs. If the mere sight of this article upsets you this much, go touch grass. Seriously.
- SilverBirch 3y ago
  Go to the NYTimes website, go to the opinion section, at the top of the page you'll find a big banner saying "Opinion" and a byline that describes the author and the detail they're contributing to the opinion side of the paper. Compare that to this site - no mention of opinion anywhere, the byline describes the author as "reporting on" the topic, and the tail of the article refers to him as a writer for the Free Press, so not traditionally an Op-Ed role. If I were editing a publication, I would feel the responsibility to disclose up front that this author was an activist, not a journalist. I was kind of reticent to actually come out and say "This website is obviously acting in bad faith and we should actively be hostile to things it suggests because of that". I tried to express reasonable and valid criticisms of its fundamental failures to adhere to basic ethics, and in response you want to accuse me of approving of drugs and hating people who hate drugs. I think we can leave it to anyone reading this conversation to decide which of us needs to go touch grass.
  - wakawaka28 3y ago
    >I was kind of reticent to actually come out and say "This website is obviously acting in bad faith and we should actively be hostile to things it suggests because of that". But you did it anyway with great gusto. >Go to the NYTimes website, go to the opinion section, at the top of the page you'll find a big banner saying "Opinion" and a byline that describes the author and the detail they're contributing to the opinion side of the paper. You're not wrong that it should probably be labeled as an editorial or something. But if you rely on such labels you're doing it wrong. Very few things, even in the precious NY Times, are presented with zero slant, regardless of the section it's in. >I tried to express reasonable and valid criticisms of its fundamental failures to adhere to basic ethics, and in response you want to accuse me of approving of drugs and hating people who hate drugs. It's just as obvious that you are writing from a biased standpoint as it is with the author of this article. I don't know the exact source of your disdain but it is clear to me that it isn't simply the technical or moral issues you've mentioned thus far. I think you have a vested interest in drugs being permitted more despite the risks, perhaps because you are or have been a regular user. >I think we can leave it to anyone reading this conversation to decide which of us needs to go touch grass. Lol it seems I touched a nerve.

wakawaka28 3y ago

I don't think it's a secret that this is an opinion piece. Do you really need a warning about that when the dude says right up front that he is in a charity dealing with the issue? >I'm so tired of this. No, it's not an excuse to say "It's fine this guy is writing misleading politically motivated drivel, other people do it too!". Firstly I don't care what other people do, and secondly go take a look at that website's about page - I don't care what the site's about page says either. News sites publish opinion all the time, and it doesn't take much of a sleuth to figure it out. It sounds like you are only itching to discredit this for other reasons, like you approve of drugs and also hate people who hate drugs. If the mere sight of this article upsets you this much, go touch grass. Seriously.

SilverBirch 3y ago
Go to the NYTimes website, go to the opinion section, at the top of the page you'll find a big banner saying "Opinion" and a byline that describes the author and the detail they're contributing to the opinion side of the paper. Compare that to this site - no mention of opinion anywhere, the byline describes the author as "reporting on" the topic, and the tail of the article refers to him as a writer for the Free Press, so not traditionally an Op-Ed role. If I were editing a publication, I would feel the responsibility to disclose up front that this author was an activist, not a journalist. I was kind of reticent to actually come out and say "This website is obviously acting in bad faith and we should actively be hostile to things it suggests because of that". I tried to express reasonable and valid criticisms of its fundamental failures to adhere to basic ethics, and in response you want to accuse me of approving of drugs and hating people who hate drugs. I think we can leave it to anyone reading this conversation to decide which of us needs to go touch grass.
- wakawaka28 3y ago
  >I was kind of reticent to actually come out and say "This website is obviously acting in bad faith and we should actively be hostile to things it suggests because of that". But you did it anyway with great gusto. >Go to the NYTimes website, go to the opinion section, at the top of the page you'll find a big banner saying "Opinion" and a byline that describes the author and the detail they're contributing to the opinion side of the paper. You're not wrong that it should probably be labeled as an editorial or something. But if you rely on such labels you're doing it wrong. Very few things, even in the precious NY Times, are presented with zero slant, regardless of the section it's in. >I tried to express reasonable and valid criticisms of its fundamental failures to adhere to basic ethics, and in response you want to accuse me of approving of drugs and hating people who hate drugs. It's just as obvious that you are writing from a biased standpoint as it is with the author of this article. I don't know the exact source of your disdain but it is clear to me that it isn't simply the technical or moral issues you've mentioned thus far. I think you have a vested interest in drugs being permitted more despite the risks, perhaps because you are or have been a regular user. >I think we can leave it to anyone reading this conversation to decide which of us needs to go touch grass. Lol it seems I touched a nerve.