He is a definition of OP-ED I goodled:
#-------------------------------------------
Definitions of *OP-ED* on the Web:
* A page opposite the editorial page, where opinions by guest
writers are presented
www.usfca.edu/classes/AuthEd/greeks/glossary.htm
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=0&oi=define&q=http://www.usfca.edu/classes/AuthEd/greeks/glossary.htm>
* An Op-Ed is a piece of writing expressing an opinion or editorial.
Such items are often found in a full newspaper page, containing
such articles by columnists, letters to the editor, and other
points, rather than news or facts. It is primarily an American term.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-Ed
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=1&oi=define&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-Ed>
#-------------------------------------------
Regards,
LelandJ
Leland Jackson wrote:
> 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 |
