If you are going to have a news thread and allow opinionated titles, that means your community supports political commentary headlines and not factual news.
The titles should be nothing other than neural summaries.
“Henry Kissenger died at age 100, He was a controversial figure in American politics”. That’s a factual title.
The published title of this post is opinionated commentary and not factual news posting.
EDIT: You won’t even support the idea of non-bias news posts. And you expect to be taken seriously. Fucking shaking my head right now.
Yes, I prefer RS keep their format they got famous for with greats such as Hunter S Thompson and Chuck Palahniuk. They’re not beat reporters, they’re journalists.
I can’t discount your point of view. But I disagree with it.
Hunter S, while awesome, was not a journalist. He was a commentator. He injected his perspective into his writing. That isn’t journalism, that is commentary.
I mean did you read what I wrote or did you just go into fanboy mode?
Firstly, Hunter was not the first person to write an opinion piece, or to write from the perspective of the subject. So “inventing” gonzo journalism? What the fuck does that even mean.
I like his style of writing, but it is commentary. Not journalism.
Literally the name journalism gives you insight as to what the approach of writing is meant to be. A journal is a series of entries in a book denoting objective facts. Commentary on one’s experiences is called a dairy.
If you are going to have a news thread and allow opinionated titles, that means your community supports political commentary headlines and not factual news.
The titles should be nothing other than neural summaries.
“Henry Kissenger died at age 100, He was a controversial figure in American politics”. That’s a factual title.
The published title of this post is opinionated commentary and not factual news posting.
EDIT: You won’t even support the idea of non-bias news posts. And you expect to be taken seriously. Fucking shaking my head right now.
It’s Rolling Stone, they mostly do editorials. They’re not the AP lmao.
I’m not saying RS is irrelevant. But it is still not academic papers. As much as they piss me off.
Editorials are almost always opinion pieces, peer review isn’t really part of that process. 😅
Do we want this to be the equivalent of editorials?
That’s basically all media these days and look how fucked they are.
I’m not asking for it to be peer reviewed, that also sucks based on the current view of the “publish or die” culture of academia.
I have no easy answers. I only have questions and counterpoints.
Yes, I prefer RS keep their format they got famous for with greats such as Hunter S Thompson and Chuck Palahniuk. They’re not beat reporters, they’re journalists.
See: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-was-a-crook/308699/
I can’t discount your point of view. But I disagree with it.
Hunter S, while awesome, was not a journalist. He was a commentator. He injected his perspective into his writing. That isn’t journalism, that is commentary.
He literally invented Gonzo journalism and pioneered the New Journalism movement, while writing for RS no less, what are you talking about.
I mean did you read what I wrote or did you just go into fanboy mode?
Firstly, Hunter was not the first person to write an opinion piece, or to write from the perspective of the subject. So “inventing” gonzo journalism? What the fuck does that even mean.
I like his style of writing, but it is commentary. Not journalism.
Literally the name journalism gives you insight as to what the approach of writing is meant to be. A journal is a series of entries in a book denoting objective facts. Commentary on one’s experiences is called a dairy.