• be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Good point and probably not, but I’m too lazy to look right now.

    Edited to add: Presumably same editorial team, so the seeming dissonance between the two articles isn’t lessened much by having different authors.

    • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Same author?

      Nah this is Robert Kagan, a Brookings Institute neocon, Republican who left in 2016, advisor to McCain for his presidential run in 2008.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It really depends a lot. If it’s something by the editorial board itself, then it’s a very jarring difference. But you can have writers with polar opposite viewpoints in editorials. It used to be nice from a reader perspective to get that variety, but then the right went wacko.

      That said, I do think it’s weird the section editor would approve something like “women need to date more conservatives”. Maybe they take the approach of not being responsible for what their authors say, but that crosses enough lines that it’s odd they didn’t step in.

      • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, these are op-eds, which are written by contributors and are different from editorials which, as the name suggests, are written by the editorial board. Op-eds traditionally were printed opposite of the editorial page --hence the name-- and were meant to be a space for subject matter experts or other thought leaders to publish opinion pieces that may or may not reflect the views of the editorial board.

        I know these things because even though I’ve never worked for a newspaper, I am old enough to have gotten an undergrad degree in journalism back in the 90s before the newspaper industry died.

      • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        As a long time subscriber, I can tell you anecdotally that WaPo is leaning a little bit further right with every passing month.

        And just in case that wasn’t clear to subscribers already, WaPo recently announced that William Smith, part of the Rebekah Brooks/Rupert Murdoch News of the World phone hacking scandal that set in motion the entire Leveson inquiry, the same William Smith accused of providing journalists’ record to police, the same William Smith who then steered the now hard-right Wall Street Journal, will be taking over as CEO and publisher of The Washington Post on January 2, 2024.

        This is a gift link to a puff piece WaPo did about him in the Style section after the first announcement was met with massive scorn from readers. I included the link so you can see reader responses for yourself: it didn’t get any better. It’s been getting strange over there for months, and choosing this guy to lead indicates Bezos wants to take WaPo in the same direction as WSJ. Yeah, no.

        After December I won’t be renewing my subscription. Might toss some cash to The Graun instead; I haven’t made up my mind yet. But given your comment I thought you might find this new direction interesting.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s good to know, thanks. I’ll have to keep a close eye on it. I subscribe to the NYT as well but I’ve been souring on them lately too.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Heh, I should clarify, I’m talking from my experience on my high school paper – which was a damn good paper that we worked our asses off on! But it’s a worthwhile stipulation to make. I’m pretty sure our processes were the same as industry for a lot of things, but I could always be wrong.

          Consider it a peek into what’s probably maybe what it’s like. I think it probably does work the way I’ve described, fwiw

    • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Neither of these were written by the WaPo’s editorial board. They are both op-eds meaning they’re written by contributors and in the old print format would be placed opposite from the editorial page, hence the name “op-ed.”

      Your comment shows a deep misunderstanding of how these things work and what function newspapers are trying to fulfill with them, but it’s probably not your fault since media literacy tends to be pretty abysmal in the US.

      • be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        So the editorial staff has no say in what is published in their newspaper? That’s definitely a different view of what the word “editor” means than I’ve had in the past, you’ve got a point there.

        Having said that, I got a much less snarky answer explaining some things already, so your sideswipe wasn’t necessary. Thank you sir and I hope the rest of your day is as lovely as you are.

        I know these things because even though I’ve never worked for a newspaper, I am old enough to have gotten an undergrad degree in journalism back in the 90s before the newspaper industry died.

        Maybe it’s not my abysmal media literacy but the fact that you know these things because you have a degree in journalism. Huh. Guess I’ll find something where you have a less than perfect understanding of my area of expertise or where I’ve had some secondary education, and be sure to point out how abysmal your literacy in that area is.