This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Journalism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 5.

Part of text removed from the main page by User_talk:Dia^. See here. Text reedited in a more general way to avoid Recentism and/or NPOV.

Because the readers of the media cannot be expected to know about the connections between op-eds editors and the industries or lobby groups sometimes funding some of them, the absence of clear declaration of conflict of interest in op-eds is increasingly recognized as a concern in American journalism.

Disclosing financial conflicts of interest that their op-ed contributors could have may help main media outlets to clarify the situation and to redefine journalism standards.^[1]

Dia^, What do you think now? Even inspired by the actuality, I think that the concern remains in a general way. The readers have to look critically to the information and they have the right to know from where it comes. Regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Shinkolobwe, now it's definitely much better but I've still some reserves. Are in US the ties between newspapers and companies/politicians/interest groups always disclosed? IMHO if that is the case than that should be in the article (something along the lines of "since in US so&so...op-ends are the only part of the press that escape the regulation" - I leave the wording at you, mine is just an example), when not than a simple sentence informing that some people are campaigning to disclose at least the ties in the op-ends should suffice. But still from the citation given, it seems that the issue is especially against that single person. What do you think? --Dia^ (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Dia^, thank you for your reaction. I have to confess that I am not a specialist of the regulations dealing with the US press, just an observer from the far Europe. This conflict of interest problem in the American press was brought to my attention with the specific case to which the reference is pointing out. In Europe, we are much less acquainted with thinktanks and lobbying groups than in the US. If possible, I will try to find a more general reference to give the framework of the problem, not focusing on a case in particular. I think also that part of the concern dealt probably also with the editorial line of The New York Times. Regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think I have found something better with two references from the Guardian and another web site:
"A concern about how to clearly disclose the ties in the op-ends arises because the readers of the media cannot be expected to know all about the possible connections between op-eds editors and interest groups funding some of them. In a letter to The New York Times, the lack of a clear declaration of conflict of interest in op-eds was criticized by a group of US journalists campaigning for more 'op-ed transparency'."^[2][3]
Shinkolobwe (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2022 and 4 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wapool (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Rosamaury, Snailery.

On 18 October 2020 the words or as a backronym the "opinions and editorials page were added by Arlo Barnes. The edit summary didn't mention a source and the sources that I have looked at -- Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Britannica -- don't say it. Has anybody ever heard of this backronym explanation, and if so what is the source? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I had a source at the time, but since I failed to include it in a <ref> I've lost track of what it was. Safest would be to revert until such time as one is found. [edit: done] Arlo James Barnes 17:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2024 and 13 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Evherbee (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bapple.joose481.

— Assignment last updated by Gcutrufello (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This article is full of unsourced original research. I trimmed a lot with various edits, each with an edit summary explaining why. We can't have arbitrary insertions about who writes op-eds, what argument structure they have, etc. And a university's page for advice to faculty about how to write op-eds isn't a source for the "average length" etc. (I suspect some of this migh be due to the "education assignments" over the years). Nillurcheier reverted me (incorrectly saying that I removed content without explanaition). I think this version is properly sourced. Comments? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Adding that 2601:240:da80:5840:11cb:1f52:e7ef:99e2 also (justifiably, IMO, and with a complete edit summary) removed some random op-eds that were listed as "popular" without any RS indicating such. This was also included in Nillurcheie's revert. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)Reply