Difference between revisions of "Talk:Editorial"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(an even worse example: global warming) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Suggestions for linkable examples== | ==Suggestions for linkable examples== | ||
| − | The easiest example to use would | + | The easiest example to use would be the online version of the New York Times, since it contains distinct Editorial, Columnist, Letters to the Editor and Op-Ed sections that show the differences between each. That source is looked down upon here, and the Wall Street Journal is a paid site, so I'm open to suggestions that would be acceptable while showing the different editorial forms above. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:35, 12 December 2008 (EST) |
:The Times is a prime example of mixing news and commentary. They do more [[advocacy journalism]] than any other newspaper than, say, the Washington Post and the Boston Globe. | :The Times is a prime example of mixing news and commentary. They do more [[advocacy journalism]] than any other newspaper than, say, the Washington Post and the Boston Globe. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
* But I digress. The real Journalistic scandal is one-sided reporting: giving all the evidence on one side of an issue - which supports the paper's editorial or ideological stance. By suppressing facts which disprove your point, the paper gives the impression that no such evidence exists. | * But I digress. The real Journalistic scandal is one-sided reporting: giving all the evidence on one side of an issue - which supports the paper's editorial or ideological stance. By suppressing facts which disprove your point, the paper gives the impression that no such evidence exists. | ||
* This is the strategy of the [[global warming]] people. They mercilessly persecute [[The Deniers]], so that no one but a handful of retirees or brave mavericks dares speak up. Then they say that "no one disagrees with us so we must be right". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:09, 12 December 2008 (EST) | * This is the strategy of the [[global warming]] people. They mercilessly persecute [[The Deniers]], so that no one but a handful of retirees or brave mavericks dares speak up. Then they say that "no one disagrees with us so we must be right". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:09, 12 December 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | :That's why I'm trying to find some online examples of a paper with distinct Editorial, Columnist, Letters to the Editor and Op-Ed sections that would not be objected to. I tried the WSJ but it's not free, and the Kansas City Star isn't organized as distinctly. Any suggestions? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:22, 12 December 2008 (EST) | ||
Latest revision as of 17:22, December 12, 2008
Suggestions for linkable examples
The easiest example to use would be the online version of the New York Times, since it contains distinct Editorial, Columnist, Letters to the Editor and Op-Ed sections that show the differences between each. That source is looked down upon here, and the Wall Street Journal is a paid site, so I'm open to suggestions that would be acceptable while showing the different editorial forms above. --DinsdaleP 10:35, 12 December 2008 (EST)
- The Times is a prime example of mixing news and commentary. They do more advocacy journalism than any other newspaper than, say, the Washington Post and the Boston Globe.
- They even let a reporter make up stuff for several months before finally canning him. See Jayson Blair. --Ed Poor Talk 12:01, 12 December 2008 (EST)
- But I digress. The real Journalistic scandal is one-sided reporting: giving all the evidence on one side of an issue - which supports the paper's editorial or ideological stance. By suppressing facts which disprove your point, the paper gives the impression that no such evidence exists.
- This is the strategy of the global warming people. They mercilessly persecute The Deniers, so that no one but a handful of retirees or brave mavericks dares speak up. Then they say that "no one disagrees with us so we must be right". --Ed Poor Talk 12:09, 12 December 2008 (EST)
- That's why I'm trying to find some online examples of a paper with distinct Editorial, Columnist, Letters to the Editor and Op-Ed sections that would not be objected to. I tried the WSJ but it's not free, and the Kansas City Star isn't organized as distinctly. Any suggestions? --DinsdaleP 12:22, 12 December 2008 (EST)