Comments on: Washington Post Media Critic Gives Opinion Writers a Truthiness License

By: ThomasT

ThomasT — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:02:52 +0000

The questioner’s points are spot-on – what a completely stupid editorial – suggesting that the prize should have been given to an ineligible person that noone had ever heard of until 5 months after the nomination deadline, as the figurehead of a movement that didn’t form until 4 months after the deadline. And Kurtz’s reply (especially the nonsensical non-example of King) was bad.

A small word in his defense, however: this was an online chat. He had to respond on the fly to an issue that he hadn’t had time to really think about. He’s not on the WaPo editorial board, and so had no hand in the piece. His authority on the matter derives from his position as a news media critic. While it would have been refreshing to see him type “Yeah, my buddies on the Editorial Board really laid an egg on that one,” that’s not a realistic expectation. Unless he takes the questioner’s assertions at face value, his position is difficult. He didn’t find the graceful exit to an unenviable position, but the original sin is the stupid editorial.

By: tubino

tubino — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:52:36 +0000

When Jack Kelly published an error-ridden column about Katrina (in the blame-the-victim vein) in the Toledo Blade, I wrote to the paper’s omsbudsman with a sourced rebuttal. Eventually Kelly had to put in a watered-down correction.

Some papers still get it, but you have to push for the recognition.

By: CreativePotato

CreativePotato — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:20:40 +0000

An opinion not at least based on facts isn’t opinion so much as delusion, in this case intentional delusion.

By: ownit

ownit — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:38:19 +0000

Not surprised in the slightest that “no-brain,” corporate lap-dog, GOP water-carrier, Kurtz wrote this piece of drivel, nor that the WaPo is the choice of media. Katherine Graham must spin like a top in her grave, poor woman, to know that such junk get passed off as the “whatever” of the day. I was also taught that Editorial “Opinions” or the OpEd pages should be backed by FACTS, and not be just the viscious rumor du jour.

Like someone else here commented, Kurtz might as well have said that the Nobel Comm. should have awarded the prize to their neighbor’s dog. The stupidity of this junk is galling but is meant as a sop to teabaggers to make them feel, uh, I dunno, like their blighted “opinions” make sense, too.

The whole argument that BHO should just toss the &*^% award back in the Nobel Comm. faces because “how dare they give me this award” reflects jealousy, unfounded rage and pandering to bottom-feeding stupidity.

If we weren’t at war in two nations (brought about by lying republicans putting US citizens and other nations into harms way in order to make a buck), I wouldn’t care so much. But such deliberate strawman “arguments” are a slap in the face to anyone who gives a darn about our nation and the rest of the world.

I’ll get off the soapbox now, but it’s tiresome to be fed b.s in the name of justifying different b.s. It all stinks to high heaven.

By: PGeorge

PGeorge — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:45:36 +0000

Two and two equals five.

It’s an opinion. Of course some readers are going to disagree.

By: EriktheRed

EriktheRed — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:26:12 +0000

It’s an opinion piece that shows the writer of said piece didn’t bother to factcheck the facts put forth in his/her argument. It’s worthless, IOW.

This isn’t the kind of thing a publication like the Washington Post should put on its pages if it wishes to continue to be taken seriously.

By: ChrisZ

ChrisZ — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:46:03 +0000

Our society does seem to have decided that opinions don’t just not need factual basis, but are actually allowed to fly in the face of facts to the contrary. That is how our current politics works and it’s how our news works. Facts have been relegated to the status of things everyone can agree on, not because they are true, but because they are benign so that no one minds whether they are true. Actual facts, and actual evidence are not a part of most public discourse. I wonder if they ever were or ever will be.

By: monopolytophat

monopolytophat — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:32:14 +0000

Nearly went to war over this issue with the editor of my college newspaper at a major institution known for journalism. He asserted that anything you publish in an editorial did not have to be factually accurate.

By: margaret

margaret — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:26:10 +0000

There is a reason I don’t read the Washington Post as his name is Howard Kurtz…

By: Notorious P.A.T.

Notorious P.A.T. — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:17:42 +0000

“But it’s an editorial. It is by definition opinion.”

Maybe I’m in the minority but when I was in high school my teachers insisted that opinions be reinforced by facts. “So, you think this poem is about X? Which lines make you think that?” or “You say X was a better president than people say–what events support your claim?” An opinion with no basis in reality is worthless. Might as well say “the Peace Prize should be given to Mickey Mouse, or my houseplant”. Hey, that’s an opinion, so why not print it?