[gonewest]

No surprises there. Just yesterday, I saw someone comment online that a particular opinion article was poorly researched and written like an amateur. Where the author has a Pulitzer and a Gerald Loeb Award with decades in the business at major periodicals and newspapers. It seems clear the judged "quality" of the opinion has mostly to do with whether the reader agrees.

[Nasrudith]

Well aren't Pulitzers more about what you uncover than how well you write and research in the book learning sense? A half illiterate crank who exposed real and concrete evidence of a massive scandal say for a deliberately nonsensical example "Microsoft is bribing the FBI to assassinate rivals" would dessrve it even if half of his works were about lizard people.

Obviously being a crazy idiot doesn't help but being a good investigator and a good writer aren't the same thing.

[grawprog]

What does it really matter what journalists actually write a piece when the publication's editors change it and have the final say for what gets published anyway?

A lot of people seem to forget how much editing by more than one person actually goes into a lot of professional writing. Editors probably have the most control over things that end up published, more so than the original writers of a piece usually do.

[CyanBird]

I'm interested in what article you saw, could you post it?