You can just click Hide and move on.

There a button to hide all editorials?

Is asking for an [editorial] to be included in the title, similar to how we tend to ask for "year published" data unreasonable?

That's a good point. The linked page even has Opinion prior to the title.

Would it be reasonable to assume the title Don't Trust Facebook with Your Love Life could possibly only be opinion? Would a reasonable person expect to see data-driven research after clicking through?

> The linked page even has Opinion prior to the title.

Yes, in a font smaller than and above the title that is very light against the background and reasonably easy to miss.

> Would it be reasonable to assume the title Don't Trust Facebook with Your Love Life could possibly only be opinion? Would a reasonable person expect to see data-driven research after clicking through?

Perhaps it's a clickbait title with real substance, or perhaps a great research piece. The only way to know is to read it.

That would be, IMHO, a great addition!

Sure, why not? In your mind, you can choose not to engage with them, yes.

I get that reading is involuntary for literate adults, but I believe it is possible to not engage with the words beyond that.

> I get that reading is involuntary for literate adults, but I believe it is possible to not engage with the words beyond that.

Perhaps you should heed your own advice.

Editorials are very clearly separated from news content in nearly every newspaper, but definitely on the NYTimes.

They have sections, and the op-Ed’s and Eds are only in the opinion section.

> Editorials are very clearly separated from news content in nearly every newspaper, but definitely on the NYTimes.

Perhaps on the paper, or the site itself. On HN it is not reasonably obvious.

Internet killed the paper star. Before news went online, good, reliable content was paid for with subscriptions.

Going online, paired with the rise of social media changed what it meant for content to be "good" - redefined it to share worthy and click based, monetized mostly by ads. Now, no one, including the famed NYT does good classical journalism - they do what gets them shares and clicks.

On closer examination of social media demographics, you can see why news has pivoted to opinion - because millennials share and click more of it, especially the opinions they approve of.

A demographic shift in HN user base is also likely the reason for more opinion making it to the top of the charts

Subscriptions were never the only revenue source for newspapers. They have always had ads.

There was a time when subscriptions had little to no ads, and ads were clearly marked as such. Now we have ads all over the place, videos autoplaying, and "influencers" (read: shady salesmen).

Now, before "the internet" (read: its commercial, world-wide success), in-depth research was costly, and it could not be copied easily. Newspapers had a reputation to hold up. It was easier to compete on information. Now the competition is much more fierce, and many people make/share news gratis, so it ends up competing with "free" is difficult.

As for NYT, there's some good people working there like Runa Sandvik, but I guess it works like every large news organization...