7 ms·

It'd be interesting if a paper could present opposing op-eds side by side by authors that are clearly the strongest on each side of the discussion. Similar to

It'd be interesting if a paper could present opposing op-eds side by side by authors that are clearly the strongest on each side of the discussion. Similar to collegiate debates or the argument/rebuttal style used for the ballot propositions we vote on. Often times - in today's media one side will present the other sides case by only addressing some strawman arguments.

Avicebron 2y ago
I like the idea, I think they would need to be staggered though, Author A writes an article giving their best case supporting X, a week later Author B writes a rebuttal to author A (let's assume it's well thought out and civil because we can still dream) in a follow up article, this continues for as long as it's an interesting conversation. Probably a hard sell to the modern audience and attention span, but I would read it as long as they both were substantive and well-reasoned.
- ncallaway 2y ago
  I think it's better to present simultaneously, but give the authors several rounds of drafting against each other, so they can update responses into their main body (similar to how supreme court opinions are authored and released). You'd need a really strong editor to be in charge of the review/revision/back-and-forth process, so they could cut out shenanigans like an author withholding their strongest argument, only to include it in their final version. I'd probably have a rule that no new arguments could be introduced into an article, other than as a direct response to anything _new_ that the opponent author included in their prior revision.
  - Avicebron 2y ago
    not sure I'm familiar with supreme court opinions, but are those drafts public? edit because parent edited to talk about editor :): I think there needs to be transparency at the editorial level then, if the editor is making decisions they can write a reasoning behind each one and make it public.
    - ncallaway 2y ago
      > not sure I'm familiar with supreme court opinions, but are those drafts public? No, they're infamously secretive. I think far too secretive, and that's a part that I don't think needs to be emulated. While I do think there's value in having the drafting process "out of the public view" for an op ed, I'd agree in transparency after the fact. I could see just publishing all the revisions, editors notes, etc online alongside the actual final pieces.
      - Avicebron 2y ago
        for debate's sake, I'm genuinely curious, if there are "out of public view" drafting/editing how can it be hardened against building a meta-narrative by making sure the two opinion pieces aren't choreographed to make A or B look bad?
        ncallaway 2y ago
        I think the only way it can truly be managed is by having the author of each side be a trusted and respected figure in their community. I think publishing the full drafts, editors notes, and revisions along with the piece would do a lot to make visible any deliberate efforts to frustrate one side. I don't think the "out of public view" drafting makes a big difference around this. I actually think making the drafting and revision process public during the drafting would have more corrosive effects on the process. In that one side can push and set a narrative without the other side having opportunity to respond. Anyway, I don't think any editorial system can be fully hardened against the editor leaving imprints of their viewpoints on the piece, but I think this approach would be significantly more transparent than the current state of play.
jfengel 2y ago
Newspapers generally run opinion pieces from an array of viewpoints. They give the writers full freedom, which makes it hard to get strict point counterpoint pieces like that. And many editors are averse to a simple "two sides" narrative.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  it sounds like Bezos is opposed to any opposing opinions to "free markets" and those won't be found on the editorial page any longer except for occasional opinions
  - jfengel 2y ago
    Yep. I was referring to newspapers with some kind of journalistic integrity. Which the Washington Post used to be.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- somenameforme 2y ago
  I don't think this has been true, at least for most newspapers, for many years now. The NYTimes opinion pages are a complete echo chamber for instance, and if contrarian opinions are published, heads roll. For instance they "retired" their opinion head after he allowed the publication of an opinion piece from a Senator Tom Cotton suggesting that troops should be used to quell the violent/destructive riots in 2020. Reading the opinion pages 30 years back everything was very different, but times have changed to where big name papers are mostly just the news shoehorned into a tidy bias confirming package. In many ways I respect what Bezos is doing because it entirely drops the farcical pretext of balance.
  - consteval 2y ago
    I don't think this is true either, and the reason I say that is because it depends on who you ask. Many will claim NYT has been overly generous in regards to Trump leading up to the election, often choosing not to comment on Trump's more suspicious speech and interpreting his words in a gracious context. While others claim NYT is has an obvious left-wing bias. The fact people can't even agree which way the bias goes demonstrates to me the bias is not as severe as those aforementioned people claim.
weare138 2y ago
I'm from GenX and at one time that's what the opinion section in newspapers were like.
- 63 2y ago
  In fairness, at one point the extremes of the public's opinions were much closer. It''s easier to debate "should we raise taxes x% to accomplish y goals" than e.g. "should we invade Canada for quite literally no stated reason." Polarization is brutal to public discourse
dougb5 2y ago
USA Today has had something like this for a long while [1], though whether they find the strongest voices on each side is debatable. [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/26/why-does-usa-today-pair-editorials-opposing-views/1059433001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/26/why-does-u...
- somethoughts 2y ago
  Cool. Wasn't aware of that. Another one is ground.news [1] which lets you compare multiple headline news articles from various sources together. [1]https://ground.news/about https://ground.news/about
andrepd 2y ago
The major weekly paper in my country does this. It's always nice to read, even though I wish the articles were longer x)
snowwrestler 2y ago
One news organization, at least, is brave enough to deliver this vision: https://theonion.com/opinion/point-counterpoint/ https://theonion.com/opinion/point-counterpoint/
- ineedasername 2y ago
  Thanks for the link, great read, and there were fine points made on both sides.
oo0shiny 2y ago
This is the general idea of the Tangle newsletter [1]. They pick a topic from the news and provide "What the Right is saying" and "What the Left is saying" about the topic. [1] https://www.readtangle.com/ https://www.readtangle.com/
- heresie-dabord 2y ago
  Right and Left are a false dichotomy of strawmen. But such is US politics.
  - NoGravitas 2y ago
    And somehow the "left" opinion is always actually a DNC centrist, while the "right" opinion is a member of the John Birch Society.
dghlsakjg 2y ago
Pro/Con op-eds is one name this goes by, and used to be incredibly common.
paulryanrogers 2y ago
Perhaps. It can also produce or reinforce a false balance. We don't have too many op eds defending the flat earth theory anymore. Sadly I've seen too many friends fall down such rabbit holes.
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  I think that if you put the strongest arguments for and against the flat earth theory together on the same page and with equal space, the result would not be a false balance. In fact I can't think of any better way to change flat earther minds.
  - 6stringmerc 2y ago
    That’s why Pastafarianism exists - okay, let’s “teach the controversy” but make sure it’s all the controversies.
  - paulryanrogers 2y ago
    IME, once folks attach some brief or figure to their identity, they turn off the logical part of their mind. They'll look for any support as an escape hatch from uncomfortable facts or conclusions. It also takes a lot of energy and ink to continuously refute perspectives based solely on indoctrination, vibes, and straight up lies.
    - paulryanrogers 2y ago
      ^belief
  - namuol 2y ago
    > In fact I can't think of any better way to change flat earther minds. You have a ruinously optimistic outlook for the average human, let alone a flat-earther.
  - Denkel 2y ago
    "together on the same space and with equal space". If you do that, you are telling anyone that just overviews the articles that both views have the same validity and that is just a manner of disagreements between peers, and that is falling into their trap, by doimg that you are actively working FOR the flatbearth cause, even if you want to feel "fair", ypu are just the useful idiot they need to keep spreading and legitimizing. Flat earthers should no be given even a second unless it is to mock them, we have known that the earth is "round" for 2 millenia, we cannot keep discussing the same things over and over just because a bunch of narcisists want to feel like "the know better".
archagon 2y ago
Not every issue has two equal “sides.” Does every article about vaccine efficacy demand an anti-vax counter? And who gets to decide which “sides” are given a voice, anyway?
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  > Not every issue has two equal “sides.” Does every article about vaccine efficacy demand an anti-vax counter? Any topic of current controversy, like vaccines, should have a counter. Even if you find it disagreeable.
  - archagon 2y ago
    Who defines “controversy,” then? If a topic has wide consensus but some think tank invests millions into propagating a contrary opinion, do they deserve 50% of the article?
typeofhuman 2y ago
https://ground.news/ https://ground.news/
EasyMark 2y ago
newsweek does it fairly often, although they aren't necessarily famous authors.
will4274 2y ago
RCP (www.realclearpolitics.com) does exactly this every day and has for almost two decades now. Unfortunately, RCP is currently majorly out of favor among liberals for... including in their polling average polls that showed Trump was going to win the 2024 election and linking to op-eds that agreed with Trump at the height of anti-Trump sentiment.
gregwebs 2y ago
Breaking points is an independent media show on (YouTube and Spotify) that has both a liberal and conservative discuss current events.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jimmydddd 2y ago
Re: Strawman -- Lex Fridman often asks his podcast guests to steel man the opposing side's views. The guests who have well thought out opinions seem to do a really good job at this.

Avicebron 2y ago

I like the idea, I think they would need to be staggered though, Author A writes an article giving their best case supporting X, a week later Author B writes a rebuttal to author A (let's assume it's well thought out and civil because we can still dream) in a follow up article, this continues for as long as it's an interesting conversation. Probably a hard sell to the modern audience and attention span, but I would read it as long as they both were substantive and well-reasoned.

ncallaway 2y ago
I think it's better to present simultaneously, but give the authors several rounds of drafting against each other, so they can update responses into their main body (similar to how supreme court opinions are authored and released). You'd need a really strong editor to be in charge of the review/revision/back-and-forth process, so they could cut out shenanigans like an author withholding their strongest argument, only to include it in their final version. I'd probably have a rule that no new arguments could be introduced into an article, other than as a direct response to anything _new_ that the opponent author included in their prior revision.
- Avicebron 2y ago
  not sure I'm familiar with supreme court opinions, but are those drafts public? edit because parent edited to talk about editor :): I think there needs to be transparency at the editorial level then, if the editor is making decisions they can write a reasoning behind each one and make it public.
  - ncallaway 2y ago
    > not sure I'm familiar with supreme court opinions, but are those drafts public? No, they're infamously secretive. I think far too secretive, and that's a part that I don't think needs to be emulated. While I do think there's value in having the drafting process "out of the public view" for an op ed, I'd agree in transparency after the fact. I could see just publishing all the revisions, editors notes, etc online alongside the actual final pieces.
    - Avicebron 2y ago
      for debate's sake, I'm genuinely curious, if there are "out of public view" drafting/editing how can it be hardened against building a meta-narrative by making sure the two opinion pieces aren't choreographed to make A or B look bad?
      - ncallaway 2y ago
        I think the only way it can truly be managed is by having the author of each side be a trusted and respected figure in their community. I think publishing the full drafts, editors notes, and revisions along with the piece would do a lot to make visible any deliberate efforts to frustrate one side. I don't think the "out of public view" drafting makes a big difference around this. I actually think making the drafting and revision process public during the drafting would have more corrosive effects on the process. In that one side can push and set a narrative without the other side having opportunity to respond. Anyway, I don't think any editorial system can be fully hardened against the editor leaving imprints of their viewpoints on the piece, but I think this approach would be significantly more transparent than the current state of play.

jfengel 2y ago

Newspapers generally run opinion pieces from an array of viewpoints. They give the writers full freedom, which makes it hard to get strict point counterpoint pieces like that. And many editors are averse to a simple "two sides" narrative.

EasyMark 2y ago
it sounds like Bezos is opposed to any opposing opinions to "free markets" and those won't be found on the editorial page any longer except for occasional opinions
- jfengel 2y ago
  Yep. I was referring to newspapers with some kind of journalistic integrity. Which the Washington Post used to be.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
somenameforme 2y ago
I don't think this has been true, at least for most newspapers, for many years now. The NYTimes opinion pages are a complete echo chamber for instance, and if contrarian opinions are published, heads roll. For instance they "retired" their opinion head after he allowed the publication of an opinion piece from a Senator Tom Cotton suggesting that troops should be used to quell the violent/destructive riots in 2020. Reading the opinion pages 30 years back everything was very different, but times have changed to where big name papers are mostly just the news shoehorned into a tidy bias confirming package. In many ways I respect what Bezos is doing because it entirely drops the farcical pretext of balance.
- consteval 2y ago
  I don't think this is true either, and the reason I say that is because it depends on who you ask. Many will claim NYT has been overly generous in regards to Trump leading up to the election, often choosing not to comment on Trump's more suspicious speech and interpreting his words in a gracious context. While others claim NYT is has an obvious left-wing bias. The fact people can't even agree which way the bias goes demonstrates to me the bias is not as severe as those aforementioned people claim.

weare138 2y ago

I'm from GenX and at one time that's what the opinion section in newspapers were like.

63 2y ago
In fairness, at one point the extremes of the public's opinions were much closer. It''s easier to debate "should we raise taxes x% to accomplish y goals" than e.g. "should we invade Canada for quite literally no stated reason." Polarization is brutal to public discourse

dougb5 2y ago

USA Today has had something like this for a long while [1], though whether they find the strongest voices on each side is debatable. [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/26/why-does-usa-today-pair-editorials-opposing-views/1059433001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/26/why-does-u...

somethoughts 2y ago
Cool. Wasn't aware of that. Another one is ground.news [1] which lets you compare multiple headline news articles from various sources together. [1]https://ground.news/about https://ground.news/about

andrepd 2y ago

The major weekly paper in my country does this. It's always nice to read, even though I wish the articles were longer x)

snowwrestler 2y ago

One news organization, at least, is brave enough to deliver this vision: https://theonion.com/opinion/point-counterpoint/ https://theonion.com/opinion/point-counterpoint/

ineedasername 2y ago
Thanks for the link, great read, and there were fine points made on both sides.

oo0shiny 2y ago

This is the general idea of the Tangle newsletter [1]. They pick a topic from the news and provide "What the Right is saying" and "What the Left is saying" about the topic. [1] https://www.readtangle.com/ https://www.readtangle.com/

heresie-dabord 2y ago
Right and Left are a false dichotomy of strawmen. But such is US politics.
- NoGravitas 2y ago
  And somehow the "left" opinion is always actually a DNC centrist, while the "right" opinion is a member of the John Birch Society.

dghlsakjg 2y ago

Pro/Con op-eds is one name this goes by, and used to be incredibly common.

paulryanrogers 2y ago

Perhaps. It can also produce or reinforce a false balance. We don't have too many op eds defending the flat earth theory anymore. Sadly I've seen too many friends fall down such rabbit holes.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago
I think that if you put the strongest arguments for and against the flat earth theory together on the same page and with equal space, the result would not be a false balance. In fact I can't think of any better way to change flat earther minds.
- 6stringmerc 2y ago
  That’s why Pastafarianism exists - okay, let’s “teach the controversy” but make sure it’s all the controversies.
- paulryanrogers 2y ago
  IME, once folks attach some brief or figure to their identity, they turn off the logical part of their mind. They'll look for any support as an escape hatch from uncomfortable facts or conclusions. It also takes a lot of energy and ink to continuously refute perspectives based solely on indoctrination, vibes, and straight up lies.
  - paulryanrogers 2y ago
    ^belief
- namuol 2y ago
  > In fact I can't think of any better way to change flat earther minds. You have a ruinously optimistic outlook for the average human, let alone a flat-earther.
- Denkel 2y ago
  "together on the same space and with equal space". If you do that, you are telling anyone that just overviews the articles that both views have the same validity and that is just a manner of disagreements between peers, and that is falling into their trap, by doimg that you are actively working FOR the flatbearth cause, even if you want to feel "fair", ypu are just the useful idiot they need to keep spreading and legitimizing. Flat earthers should no be given even a second unless it is to mock them, we have known that the earth is "round" for 2 millenia, we cannot keep discussing the same things over and over just because a bunch of narcisists want to feel like "the know better".

archagon 2y ago

Not every issue has two equal “sides.” Does every article about vaccine efficacy demand an anti-vax counter? And who gets to decide which “sides” are given a voice, anyway?

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
> Not every issue has two equal “sides.” Does every article about vaccine efficacy demand an anti-vax counter? Any topic of current controversy, like vaccines, should have a counter. Even if you find it disagreeable.
- archagon 2y ago
  Who defines “controversy,” then? If a topic has wide consensus but some think tank invests millions into propagating a contrary opinion, do they deserve 50% of the article?

typeofhuman 2y ago

https://ground.news/ https://ground.news/

EasyMark 2y ago

newsweek does it fairly often, although they aren't necessarily famous authors.

will4274 2y ago

RCP (www.realclearpolitics.com) does exactly this every day and has for almost two decades now. Unfortunately, RCP is currently majorly out of favor among liberals for... including in their polling average polls that showed Trump was going to win the 2024 election and linking to op-eds that agreed with Trump at the height of anti-Trump sentiment.

gregwebs 2y ago

Breaking points is an independent media show on (YouTube and Spotify) that has both a liberal and conservative discuss current events.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jimmydddd 2y ago

Re: Strawman -- Lex Fridman often asks his podcast guests to steel man the opposing side's views. The guests who have well thought out opinions seem to do a really good job at this.