At 05:08 PM 4/29/2005 -0400, Ed Leafe wrote:
>>No, my problem (such as it is) is the constant use of them as fact and
>>that is how it appears to me.
>
> How was this presented as a "fact"? The original post led off
> with the following:
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>- - - - -
>OP-ED COLUMNIST
>
>On Abu Ghraib, the Big Shots Walk
...
Just dipping into OT again.
An Op-Ed piece is essentially a protection for the writer so they can't be
sued for what they say. In other words "It's just my opinion." Generally,
Op-Ed pieces provide very little substantiation in their content and are
often inflammatory. As such, putting any 'credence' into an op-ed piece is
ill-advised. Sure an op-ed piece can potentially start off some good
debates, but I can't remember any op-ed piece I've ever read which I would
feel worthy of quoting as a 'source' of fact (other than stating a fact
about the attitudes of the author of the op-ed piece).
This applies to any op-ed piece (sometimes called 'editorials') anywhere.
It doesn't matter if it's coming from conservatives or liberals. Read 'em
for entertainment. Read 'em to look at the 'other' side's point of view,
etc. But believe them as fact? Bad idea. Use the piece as an outline to go
and research the facts? That might work. But don't be surprised if you
can't find any evidence for what the author is saying. If there were facts,
and if the author did have them, there is no reason to make the article and
'op-ed' piece. It would simply be reporting. But reporters can be sued for
libel if what they print is false. They can't be sued for their 'opinion'
(well, actually, anyone can be sued for anything nowadays - but I would
think it's a lot more difficult win when suing someone's 'opinion').
I'm not specifically targeting the article in question. My points apply to
any op-ed/editorial written anywhere.
And, of course, this is just IMO.
:-)
-Charlie
©2005 Charlie Coleman |
