> Opinion pieces are strewn throughout regular news links, and that really cheapens the brand of news delivery they had.
We lost some real valuable metadata about news from the print era, opinion pieces were limited to Column 1 and the last few pages of section A in most major publications. They were sometimes even in a different font. You knew instinctively that the content you were reading was held to a different standard than the main content.
It would really help if we somehow bring that metadata back in a video and online environment.
I like the FT's color cues: opinion pieces are marked with blue quotation marks on the homepages, the author's name in blue for shorter links (contrasting with the dark red category label used for regular articles), and a blue header with the author's photo on the article itself.
Not just that, the newspaper edutorial staff might strongly disagree with the content on those pages. They published it as someone's opinion, not necessarily their opinion.
That seems to be a lost art. When Tom Cotton wrote an opinion piece for the NYT, the editor who ran it was gone in a few days. Yikes.
I think this is why some people have made whole successful careers in sub-niches of curated news: John Oliver, Fareed Zakaria, etc. etc.
When you watch something that one of them makes, they (or someone connected to them) have creative control over the curation, and it gets attached to their reputation.
So, if I hear something on CNN, I have near zero indication about its quality. As a result, I don't read or watch CNN literally ever, unless some other curated source refers it to me for some reason.
But if I watch John Oliver or Fareed Zakaria, I know there's going to be a much higher than usual standard for quality of curation, analysis, interest/relevance, etc.
While I don't necessarily agree that either of those examples are free from having an agenda, I would absolutely agree that they present a clearer picture and are of a higher quality than CNN or most news outlets in their comprehensiveness.
What I find concerning is the way, through omission or contrivance, these 'full picture' opinion news media organizations can manipulate the storyline for their agenda and also leave you feeling fully informed. Zakaria and Oliver being in reality organizations and not a sole, independent report. NPR being the most notable version with a distinct slant on the news. To the extent that through a day's listening, a recognizable story arc is defined. Often with tension and resolution, so that the audience feels they have challenged their beliefs, but have ultimately been proven correct in their presuppositions.
Oh, I just reread what I wrote. I didn't mean to suggest they were neutral sources! Just that they were examples of when you watch something they make, you know what you're getting! That was supposed to be analogous to the opinion section in a newspaper or something.
> To the extent that through a day's listening, a recognizable story arc is defined. Often with tension and resolution, so that the audience feels they have challenged their beliefs, but have ultimately been proven correct in their presuppositions.
Good observation. Even if there's nothing nefarious going on, this is not a great situation.
We lost some real valuable metadata about news from the print era, opinion pieces were limited to Column 1 and the last few pages of section A in most major publications. They were sometimes even in a different font. You knew instinctively that the content you were reading was held to a different standard than the main content.
It would really help if we somehow bring that metadata back in a video and online environment.