Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
It's an opinion piece. It's not supposed to be objective journalism. Do people seriously not understand the difference?
|
Sure, but not all opinions are equal. Good opinions are based on an accurate representation of the thing or person the opinion is about. This article doesn't even attempt to do this. It starts with the false dichotomy in the title (probably not the authors fault) and continues with the authors complete failure to cite anything substantial Peterson has written or said (as opposed to non-substantial things like tweets), and even then only one quote is a complete sentence. Even the conclusion that Peterson is a snake oil salesman fails to take into account the fact that a mere 5 minutes on google would have revealed; What Peterson is selling actually works for a substantial group of people.
So no, it doesn't need to be objective journalism; that's merely determining the facts. However, any good opinion depends on something that approximates objective journalism and is formulated as a genuine attempt to provide a valid and sound argument. This piece doesn't even come close.