news vs opinion

Why am i treating 'news' items and 'opinion' items the same way?

In my own media consumption, I do make a mental distinction between 'news' and 'opinion' pieces: I expect news pieces to be free of opinion, and a news writer loses credibility in my eyes if I detect subjectivity. I expect 'opinion' pieces to contain subjective material, but I also assume that the writer is not necessarily providing a fair or complete presentation of all the facts.

The problem with my approach is that now, I detect bias in virtually all news sources. So my personal filters leave me without any credible sources for news.

But the bigger problem with my approach is that to be truly without bias is not a natural state. All people and systems have inherent bias. A person who presents themselves as objective is simply attempting to cover up, or mask, or hide their actual internal biases, through an internal subjective process that is itself inherently biased. And therefore dishonest.

In this experiment, I am focusing on the type of language used and the strategies employed by the writer in both 'news' and 'opinion' pieces. I am identifying and quantifying attempts to manipulate the reader in both 'new' and 'opinion' pieces (and therefore also identifying content that is not manipulative).

It is possible for a news writer to share facts clearly and without manipulation, or for an opinion writer to share opinions clearly and without manipulation. Both could be educational, and interesting to read.

It is equally possible for a news writer to be manipulative, to present facts in a fog of messaging that affects the reader. And of course commentators can use all sorts of rhetorical tricks elevate their opinions.

'News' content is often considered more credible than 'opinion' content, but the more important distinction is between clear and manipulative content. Identifying and avoiding manipulative content is far more effective strategy for critical thinking than 'sticking to the facts.'