[downandout]

Agreed. The facts borne out by the University of Washington study are what they are. The counterpoints in this article appear weak, and designed to support a specific political point of view held by the Washington Post and many of its readers. They are essentially saying that the Berkley study used a different methodology, and that they like the Berkley methodology better (because it produced results they agree with).

Cherry picking studies that support your own point of view isn't journalism, and it is irresponsible. It's done by both sides, and has helped create the dismal state of political discourse in the US.

[tanderson92]

> Cherry picking studies that support your own point of view isn't journalism

This is in the opinion section.

[downandout]

True, but it's interesting that the headline doesn't say "Opinion:..." like most publications of this stature do. This author made a statement of fact in his headline, and proceeds to justify it with an incredibly biased opinion.

[tanderson92]

Mouse over "Perspective" at the top of the page and you will see:

"Perspective: Discussion of news topics with a point of view, including narratives by individuals regarding their own experiences" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[downandout]

Again, how many people are doing this? Most people read the article and headline and move on with their day. WaPo allowed this guy to make a statement of fact in his headline with zero indication that it was an opinion.

[dragonwriter]

> WaPo allowed this guy to make a statement of fact in his headline with zero indication that it was an opinion.

No, they didn't. “...actually working just fine.” is inherently a claim about how facts fit into the speakers subjective value framework; it is not a fact claim.

[dragonwriter]

> True, but it's interesting that the headline doesn't say "Opinion:..."

The section header above the headline includes “Perspective”, a common journalistic synonym [0] for opinion.

[0] Well, not quite synonym: “opinion”, “analysis”, and “perspective” are related not-just-the-facts categories, with subtle differences (but frequent overlap) in how they are generally used, but lumping then all together is useful in contexts where the interest is distinguishing from “straight” news reporting.

[WillPostForFood]

A good opinion piece doesn't cherry pick either.

[striking]

How can you tell? I don't see any sort of indication that it is.

[downandout]

Apparently WaPo's name for the "Opinion" section is "Perspective" which is somewhat misleading. Also most people reading online won't care to look - I had to go back and look after reading this comment, because it isn't mentioned at all in the headline that this is a biased opinion piece.

[tanderson92]

> it isn't mentioned at all in the headline that this is a biased opinion piece.

Claims of bias simply for expressing a point of view in an opinion piece are amusing.

How many opinion pieces have you found which in your view do not advocate for a point of view, i.e. biased?

[downandout]

Again, you're missing the point. Most publications (newspapers etc. that also publish hard news) indicate that it is an opinion right in the title of the article so that there is no mistaking it.

[clarky07]

The point is that it isn't clearly labeled as an opinion piece. Not that opinion pieces can't be biased.

[tanderson92]

That is what PostEverything Perspectives is. The description for PostEverything itself on the main page is "The conversation is bigger than you think."

Or as I said above in response to a similar comment:

Mouse over "Perspective" at the top of the page and you will see: "Perspective: Discussion of news topics with a point of view, including narratives by individuals regarding their own experiences"

[zo1]

They're giving that opinion a "platform". And a very public one at that, as it comes with the reputability and prestige of the Washington Post.

Calling it an "opinion" piece is just an excuse. Letting both promote their agenda and claim to be impartial at the same time.