Hi Charlie,
I'm sure respected newspapers like the Washington Post and the NY Times
are very careful in what they allowed into their papers. I'm not sure
how much protection is provided to the newspapers by labeling an article
as OP-ED, but I'm sure the newspaper would not escape liability if it
recklessly, or knowingly allow misleading or false article into its
newspapers. Such Gross Negligence could certainly be a basis for a
legal action. Therefore, I think OP-ED article are a great source of
entertainment and provided useful, provocative, and insightful information.
OP-ED article are a breath of fresh air compared to the canned new
release to the lap dog reporters that often hide the fact that the
source of their news are various departments and agency of the Federal
Government. Also, the "real" new gleaned by the press core during
President Bush's addresses to the nation were probably the most
misleading and damaging new ever reported, and that fiasco seem to be
standard operating procedure. The "real" new has reached the point to
where the majority of the American people no longer have any confidence
in it, so why not turn to someone with a hint of skepticism, even if it
base on their opinion, rather than the mass media propaganda machine.
So far as I'm concerned, The mass new media and the news coming out of
the white house has no credibility.
Regards,
LelandJ
Charlie Coleman wrote:
> 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
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2005 Leland Jackson |
