I do believe that used to be the case one day in the past, and i agree that often the journalistic pieces appear of a higher standard. But when it comes to telling the unbiased truth i have found i can trust them about the same.
By a general rule, if it is a medium known to be capable of influence public opinion it has been corrupted on some levels. Almost always are lies bundles with truth to further obstruct clarity. The (difficult) trick appears to be to be know ledged enough about the general subject matter to differentiate truth from lies, the source then matters less.
Something recent that made me think of this https://archive.is/G0Lm2 (the irony of posting a piece of journalism is not lost on me)
The real irony is that you proved my point. You cited an actual piece of journalism as if it is a trusted source when the source is literally the same as the one that published the opinion piece in question. There can really be no doubt that there is a huge difference between an opinion piece and journalism.
I posted the article I read because it happened to be recommended to my feed by a Lemmy stranger. In that way, my post and the OP’s are the same.
I am not in disagreement that journalism can be of higher quality, which is visible difference. But my own actual point is that the trustworthiness ultimately comes down to critical thinking of the reader to decide for themselves and form their own opinions. Dismissing all opinion pieces simply because they are labeled as such limits exposure to information and hinders the ability to discern factuality.
I never said that opinion pieces should be categorically disregarded. Just that they should be taken with the same seriousness you would take a YouTube commentator. They’re just opinions spouted by some person and should not in any way be confused for journalism.
I do believe that used to be the case one day in the past, and i agree that often the journalistic pieces appear of a higher standard. But when it comes to telling the unbiased truth i have found i can trust them about the same.
By a general rule, if it is a medium known to be capable of influence public opinion it has been corrupted on some levels. Almost always are lies bundles with truth to further obstruct clarity. The (difficult) trick appears to be to be know ledged enough about the general subject matter to differentiate truth from lies, the source then matters less.
Something recent that made me think of this https://archive.is/G0Lm2 (the irony of posting a piece of journalism is not lost on me)
The real irony is that you proved my point. You cited an actual piece of journalism as if it is a trusted source when the source is literally the same as the one that published the opinion piece in question. There can really be no doubt that there is a huge difference between an opinion piece and journalism.
I posted the article I read because it happened to be recommended to my feed by a Lemmy stranger. In that way, my post and the OP’s are the same.
I am not in disagreement that journalism can be of higher quality, which is visible difference. But my own actual point is that the trustworthiness ultimately comes down to critical thinking of the reader to decide for themselves and form their own opinions. Dismissing all opinion pieces simply because they are labeled as such limits exposure to information and hinders the ability to discern factuality.
I never said that opinion pieces should be categorically disregarded. Just that they should be taken with the same seriousness you would take a YouTube commentator. They’re just opinions spouted by some person and should not in any way be confused for journalism.