[plorg]

For one, this issue seems to be one which he is personally taking on himself. Part of it seems to be his identity as a gay man. He also takes pains to frame the issue with regards to a faith which is deeply personal to him.

I don't know that he is necessarily trying to use this as a rhetorical cudgel, to beat the conclusion into the minds of those who support discriminatory legislation. This letter/editorial seems to be framed as Tim, with the support of Apple, raising a rallying flag or even just joining in the rally of businesses who are against this legislation.

[xnull2guest]

It is not Tim Cook who is using this as rhetorical cudgel.

It is the Washington Post's rhetoric and the WP's readership, and by proxy HN, that are subjects of that rhetoric.

[kimdouglasmason]

Wat?

Tim Cook wrote it. He's a gay man.

But apparently it's not Tim Cook who is using this as a 'rhetorical cudgel' (whatever that is). It's WaPo.

I don't know what to make of this. One interpretation is that WaPo have enlisted Tim Cook as some kind of patsy or useful idiot. The same Tim Cook who is CEO of one of the world's largest and most profitable corporations.

As Dr Evil would say, 'Riiiiiiight....'

I suspect Tim Cook is stating his actual opinion on this one; as a gay man, who doesn't want laws passed in his own country that would allow businesses to withhold service solely because he's a gay man. Seems sensible to me.

[xnull2guest]

Who said Tom Cook was enlisted? That's not a very charitable interpretation...

Here's the interpretation. Tom Cook has ideas. They aren't particularly interesting ones (they aren't 'idiotic', rather they seem mundane). Tom Cook made statements including his ideas. He is nobody's patsy.

WP made an appeal from authority in its article about Tom Cook. It implied that his ideas were interesting somehow because he is an authority figure. But on their own - no the ideas are not anything new.

[kimdouglasmason]

Did they? It's in their 'opinions' section; it's an op-ed. The headline is "Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous".

I honestly don't know how a newspaper can make it more clear that something is the opinion of an individual person.

If this is an appeal from authority, then so is every op-ed written by every powerful or popular person ever.

[xnull2guest]

The opinions of powerful people are indeed appeals from authority by the media that (selectively) publish them.

So I would agree with this, sans the universal (there are powerful people who are experts in an area of law as a counterexample).

How could a media outlet make it more clear something is an opinion? They could put it in the title and in the body of the article as a start. They could add content to contextualize the opinion and remind the reader that the opinion maker holds no authority on the matter. They could link to opinion holders with opposing views but equal status. There are a myriad of ways they could do this - some of them very minimal ("Tom Cook opinion: Pro-discrimination 'religious freedom' laws are dangerous").