You contradict yourself by saying both the platform should publish important people and that the platform is not lending credibility. Which is it?
Then you created a strawman argument to knock down. If they do anything, I'd actually like them to research the statements made and publish the facts instead of publishing the statements directly under their headline. They don't need to put their heads in the sand.
Maybe spending less time reading biased op-eds would help you develop better skills in this area.
Your insult is the kind of low quality insult that gets published sometimes in smaller local newspapers. It doesn't add anything but at least helps in filling up the pages – or the DOM in our case.
> If they do anything, I'd actually like them to research the statements made and publish the facts instead of publishing the statements directly under their headline.
That's exactly what they almost always do, if such statements are made. But usually there will be an opponent refuting the claims in his own op-ed in tomorrow's newspaper.
>You contradict yourself by saying both the platform should publish important people and that the platform is not lending credibility. Which is it?
Where is the contradiction? If you understand that opinion is different from reporting, then there is no credibility lending or borrowing. Likewise a newspaper doesn't endorse eating at Subway just because they print one of their ads.
Then you created a strawman argument to knock down. If they do anything, I'd actually like them to research the statements made and publish the facts instead of publishing the statements directly under their headline. They don't need to put their heads in the sand.
Maybe spending less time reading biased op-eds would help you develop better skills in this area.