←back to thread

473 points Bostonian | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.279s | source
Show context
devindotcom ◴[] No.42179087[source]
Every piece called out here is clearly labeled "opinion" - did they even read the normal news and analysis sections? Countless newspapers and outlets and actual scientific journals have opinion/editorial sections that are generally very well firewalled from the factual content. You could collect the worst hot takes from a few years of nearly any site with a dedicated opinion page and pretend that it has gone downhill. But that this the whole point of having a separate opinion section — so opinions have a place to go, and are not slipped into factual reporting. And many opinion pieces are submitted by others or solicited as a way to show a view that the newsroom doesn't or can't espouse.

Whether the EIC of SciAm overstepped with her own editorializing is probably not something we as outsiders can really say, given the complexities of running a newsroom. I would caution people against taking this superficial judgment too seriously.

replies(15): >>42179132 #>>42179166 #>>42179285 #>>42179346 #>>42179613 #>>42180939 #>>42181377 #>>42181626 #>>42181975 #>>42182171 #>>42182356 #>>42182383 #>>42182536 #>>42183012 #>>42183062 #
1. scarab92 ◴[] No.42179166[source]
The examples given in the article are quite egregious, and the authors of those pieces are not notable.

SciAm nonetheless made the decision that those particular opinions should be published under their banner, and it’s not clear on what basis that decision was made other than editorial discretion.