No I’m making that claim that the title to this post has the world’s New York Times in the title and you’re deciding you want to have a different conversation, which is fine, but why do you gotta hijack someone else’s thread to do it? Make your own post and do it there.
No. Once again, the root post of this chain is, in it’s entirety “>opinion columnist”. Your response is that NYT does this to prevent echo chambers. My response is to object, not to the NYT part, but to the to prevent echo chambers part.
The Opinion section operates editorially independently from the rest of the newspaper. It is the section’s unique mission both to be the voice of The Times, and to challenge it. The Op-Ed pages were born, in part, because of the closing of New York’s top conservative newspaper, The New York Herald Tribune. They were created to be opposite the editorial pages — and not just physically.
The funny part is that I think pretty much everyone hates them, and that’s kind of the point. If you never read anything outside of your echo chamber, you’ll never know how absolutely ridiculous some of these very widely believed opinions are.
Yes, yes I am choosing to ignore it, because it’s irrelevant to the point I’m making, because the point I’m making is that they’re not there to break up the echo chamber, they’re the second wall of it, and unless you make a special case for the NYT, they are neither exempt not unique about it.
You are confused: it’s an editorial from the Washington Post.
Ok, but isn’t the OP about the NYT?
The root comment of this chain, to which you responded to, is, in it’s entirety:
It does not specify a paper. Nor is the practice of employing columnists for opinion laundering limited to the NYT.
Sure, but the context of the post is NYT. Feel free to start your own thread about the WP I guess?
No, the context is opinion columns. Or are you making the claim that NYT, specifically, does not engage in the practice, unlike WaPo?
No I’m making that claim that the title to this post has the world’s New York Times in the title and you’re deciding you want to have a different conversation, which is fine, but why do you gotta hijack someone else’s thread to do it? Make your own post and do it there.
No. Once again, the root post of this chain is, in it’s entirety “>opinion columnist”. Your response is that NYT does this to prevent echo chambers. My response is to object, not to the NYT part, but to the to prevent echo chambers part.
You’re choosing to ignore that the branch post you’re referring to is responding to the root post about the New York Times.
Here’s some facts, about the NYT (from when they were called op-ed pieces, it was changed in 2021):
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/03/insider/opinion-op-ed-explainer.html
The funny part is that I think pretty much everyone hates them, and that’s kind of the point. If you never read anything outside of your echo chamber, you’ll never know how absolutely ridiculous some of these very widely believed opinions are.
Yes, yes I am choosing to ignore it, because it’s irrelevant to the point I’m making, because the point I’m making is that they’re not there to break up the echo chamber, they’re the second wall of it, and unless you make a special case for the NYT, they are neither exempt not unique about it.