05-05-2008, 08:05 PM
[quote RgrF]Any such list is by definition "opinion".
This is both true and false. It's opinion because it was selected by editors, and the selection process (what's included, excluded, and what order they're in) is subjective. The priorities or the overall character of the list will likely reflect the editorial slant of the publication presenting it.
But it's not completely true. If it were, every word in print, in every news publication, is merely "opinion", including the news section, because headlines and stories and priorities are selected by editors.
In this case, leaving aside the editorial comments or descriptions associated with each list item, it's a fairly straight list, more or less equally representing figures from both sides of the political spectrum. Influence is diminished if it only caters to an exclusive group. Purely partisan figures like Limbaugh, or Carville, can rally the converted, but they're not likely to influence anyone outside their own party.
Democratic political strategists pay as much attention to what Carl Rove says as Republican strategists do. Republicans pay attention to what Chris Matthew says, even though he's a former Carter speechwriter. What difference does it make? If a figure is relevant to only one side or the other, preaching to the converted, that figure isn't as influential.
I agree with Stevie. It's a lot easier to trash, dismiss, or casually discredit an attempt at a discussion starter than it is to make a contribution, risk an opinion, or join the conversation.
This is both true and false. It's opinion because it was selected by editors, and the selection process (what's included, excluded, and what order they're in) is subjective. The priorities or the overall character of the list will likely reflect the editorial slant of the publication presenting it.
But it's not completely true. If it were, every word in print, in every news publication, is merely "opinion", including the news section, because headlines and stories and priorities are selected by editors.
In this case, leaving aside the editorial comments or descriptions associated with each list item, it's a fairly straight list, more or less equally representing figures from both sides of the political spectrum. Influence is diminished if it only caters to an exclusive group. Purely partisan figures like Limbaugh, or Carville, can rally the converted, but they're not likely to influence anyone outside their own party.
Democratic political strategists pay as much attention to what Carl Rove says as Republican strategists do. Republicans pay attention to what Chris Matthew says, even though he's a former Carter speechwriter. What difference does it make? If a figure is relevant to only one side or the other, preaching to the converted, that figure isn't as influential.
I agree with Stevie. It's a lot easier to trash, dismiss, or casually discredit an attempt at a discussion starter than it is to make a contribution, risk an opinion, or join the conversation.