Re:How Evil Is Tech?
by chickenfries on Wednesday November 22, 2017 @06:35PM
(#15761636)
> I was just addressing an issue somebody else raised earlier about the blurring of news and opinion, by pointing out that the author directly contributes to this problem by the way he wrote his article.
I guess I just really strongly disagree that the sentence you quoted constitutes "blurring the line." It says that some people think something and then went on to detail who these people were. Further more, David Brooks is possibly one of the most well known columnists for one of the most well read newspapers in the world. It's labeled "Opinion" and "Op-ed Columnist" at the top. It has an editorialized title, "How Evil is Tech?" It's so clearly NOT news. Nitpicking this one sentence to say that somehow David Brooks is masquerading as news is absurd.
Nitpicking this one sentence to say that somehow David Brooks is masquerading as news is absurd.
That was just one example. If anyone is nitpicking here, I'd argue it's you. And I still have no idea what point you're trying to make.
Re:How Evil Is Tech?
by chickenfries on Wednesday November 22, 2017 @10:39PM
(#15762561)
The point I'm trying to make is that this op-ed doesn't "blur the line" it's a textbook, completely average op-ed and correctly labeled as op-ed.
I guess I'll just say this:
I never said I disagree with any specific point in the article, and what you quoted there was simply an example of how the author of TFA poses something (which might or might not be true) as "news", in a way that could blur the line between a "news piece" and an "opinion piece". I was just addressing an issue somebody else raised earlier about the blurring of news and opinion, by pointing out that the author directly contributes to this problem by the way he wrote his article.
Whether those statements are true or not isn't actually relevant to this specific point. They may be relevant to the broader issue of whether or not the "tech backlash" is real, but that isn't what I was commenting on there.