Sadly many folks have forgotten that the point of opinion writing is exactly to make us think, whether we disagree with their conclusions or not.

I honestly think that's giving most publications too much credit. Many opinion pieces seem intended to provoke outrage, much like Facebook's much-maligned newsfeed algorithms.

That's quite recent. Instant feedback, starting with the 24-hour news cycle and ending with social media clicks, brought on the bomb-throwers. In the 80s and 90s it was not unusual to pick up the paper and read an informed, cogent, well-reasoned essay about some topic that few readers might be interested in (and most might disagree with). All that's gone now, however. It's all just clan-based emotion-driven click-bait and grenade-throwing now.

I said I scan a ton of commentary. It used to be (ten years or more ago) that the majority would be, well, opinion pieces. Now only 5-10% or so are actually opinion pieces. Most of the time it's just cheerleading to people with more and more invective about things the audience already agrees with. There's really little value to be had.

That has never been the point of an opinion piece. The point of an opinion piece is to lie, cajole, trick, etc people into accepting your opinion or viewpoint. That's why newspapers separate news from opinion. The point of the opinion piece is opposite of getting people to think. The point of it is to stop people from thinking. It's to get people on your side.

There are surely some people these days who approach things like this, and they come from both political polarities. But as DanielBMarkham points out nearby, it hasn't always been this way.

And even today, there are plenty of people who, I think, strive for finding truth (e.g., Scott Alexander, Megan McArdle)

We can start from a common set of objective facts, but because we all have our own values, we can get to a broad range of different conclusions from them.

A good opinion writer is not, as you assert, lying and tricking people. A good opinion writer is developing from our shared factual foundation through one possible set of values - and hopefully "showing their work" so we know what those assumptions are.

Thus, as DBM says, we can learn alot even from someone who reaches a conclusion different from the one driven by our own personal values. At the very least, we should learn that those we disagree with aren't evil monsters, but maybe trying to get to a vision similar to our own but in different ways.

I don't even want to read the opinion pieces that you seem to hold up as exemplary. I'm tired of the hatefulness and spite. It really is possible to communicate an opinion that's based entirely on agreed facts, to come to a different conclusion than someone else, and to do so without lying and tricking. That is what we should be striving for.

And I maintain that, e.g., Scott Alexander at SlateStarCodex.com is a sterling example of this. If you disagree, I'd love to hear why.

If someone reads an opinion piece and changes their mind, is that not thinking?

Also, what you're saying is your opinion, are you trying to get people on your side? Is your goal in writing a comment here today is to stop people from thinking?

Ha, wait, what? Opinion pieces don't exist simply as a public service to help readers get the ol' brain juices flowing! They are outlets for rhetoric, striving to convince the reader--and often to call them to action. For this reason, opinion pieces have a moral valence!

An opinion piece which competently and cleverly convinces its audience that good is bad and wrong is right is a deeply unethical thing. And Krauthammer's entire career was spent doing exactly this.

I read this as "I didn't agree with what he wrote; therefore he was trying to convince people that good is bad and wrong is right".

They were reasonably well-written but usually extremely poorly reasoned and frequently grounded in convenient inventions (whether about the subject subject matter or the supposed positions of his opponents) rather than facts.