[noxer]

Opinions backed by facts would be fine. If someone explains why he has the opinion he has then I can agree/disagree/provide a better reasoning for another opinion etc. But most of the opinions voiced are either not backed by anything or backed by one of the most common logical fallacy.

[parineum]

It's not just that, opinions are intertwined with (often) cherry picked facts in such a way that it blurs the line between them.

When writing in a style that I'd closely associate with how I'd like journalism written, I often find myself taking the beginning few sentences/paragraph to explain the facts of the situation as I understand it and the rest on what I think about it or why I think it occurred, etc.

I write this way because I am very open to corrections on the facts and my opinions may change wildly if those facts are corrected or updated so stated the basis for my thoughts up front helps provide context. My opinions and explanations are a lot less malleable if the facts don't change. I'm open to expanding and discussing my opinions but they usually evolve rather than fully change.

It's hard for me to really speculate on the driving force or the motive behind what we see in journalism today (or whether it's new) but it's very clear to me that the intent of the articles written don't seem to be clarity between fact and opinion.

[noxer]

The classic is "backed by statistics" so both sides pick the statistics that confirms their opinion.

Last seen just these days in US media about guns/gun crime/shootings etc. etc. There are so many statistics which all define mass shootings however they want and its super easy to find the "facts" you need for whatever point you wanna bring across.