Does Opinion/Analysis allow for no research, sourcing or fact checking?

lostexpectation

Just one example
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/away-with-the-naysayers--and-lets-rejoice-in-jesus-1253464.html
> Opinion > Analysis
Away with the naysayers and let's rejoice in Jesus

By Mary Kenny
Monday December 24 2007

And it is a form of what Australians call "cultural cringe" -- timidly failing to defend your own culture -- to be bullied into the pusillanimous neutrality of "Winterval" or the repellent American formula "Happy Holidays" (maddening to those obliged to work over the Christmas season).

When a few clicks would find that its misused urban myth and a terrible example to argue her case with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterval

The word came to prominence in 1998 when Birmingham City Council in the United Kingdom used it as a title to encompass the three month collection of multi-faith and secular events, running from October to January, and including Bonfire Night, Diwali, New Year and other seasonal events as well as Christmas itself.

We should all know by now it was shopping promotion and they had Christmas
events when just before Christmas.

Every other pundit is using this as example but its no excuse for Mary Kenny and not excuse for the paper not to check and correcting her before publishing.

So do papers not fact check opinion and analysis articles like they should do with all parts of their paper?

mike65

I suppose "opinion" can be as fact-free as the writer likes as its only opinion and can be low or high calibre. The reader has to decide if Mary Kennys words are worth a damn.

Mike.

constitutionus

yup. because its "opinion" your free to make up any old ****e you feel like.

personally i dont mind it because considering the things that go on in this country that dont have any evidence some times incisive analysis and opinion allows you to state what would seem to be a logical conclusion.

still i'd much rather it was backed up with quality investigative journalism and seeing as that costs alot of money its far easier for hacks to just make up crap. usually about people who're too dirt poor to sue them or more perferably dead. case in point liam lawlor and the "prostitute" in his car

the days when you can 100% rely on what a paper prints, or even a station broadcasts, are well over.

monument

The Press Council's Code of Practice says...

Principle 2 − Distinguishing Fact and Comment

2.1 Comment, conjecture, rumour and unconfirmed reports shall not be reported as if they were fact, but newspapers and periodicals are entitled to advocate strongly their own views on topics.

It also says...

Principle 1 − Truth and Accuracy

1.1 In reporting news and information, newspapers and periodicals shall strive at all times for truth and accuracy.

1.2 When a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distorted report or picture has been published, it shall be corrected promptly and with due prominence.

1.3 When appropriate, a retraction, apology, clarification, explanation or response shall be published promptly and with due prominence.

...there's nothing I can see that would lead me to think that comment articles when talking about facts are outside the bounds of Truth and Accuracy section of the code.

Whether the example given in the opening post is "significant" is another matter.

constitutionus wrote: »

the days when you can 100% rely on what a paper prints, or even a station broadcasts, are well over.

When exactly could you 100 percent rely on newspapers?

mike65

The day before the first ever newspaper was printed.

Mike

lostexpectation

its significant because its been so often misused in the few last months, this playwright, broadcaster journalist founding member of the irish feminist movement and catholic! would seem to not have had applied her standards to this article.

do they not get someone else to read and check these type of articles. it would be so obviously wrong to anyone especially those in media circles.

lostexpectation

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7174760.stm

this opinionator got stung for his waffle.

constitutionus

lostexpectation wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7174760.stm

this opinionator got stung for his waffle.

brilliant

at least he has the decency to admit he was wrong.

mike65

I don't even have to click the link (Clarkson!)

Mike.

flogen

lostexpectation wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7174760.stm

this opinionator got stung for his waffle.

That's pretty sweet alright - serves his smug self right.