Why do some of the questions here present quotes from newspaper opinion pieces as valid sources of news?

I agree. Coming from a family that was in the newspaper business between 1921 and 1999 the face of reporting has changed so much it's hard to get a straight answer. It used to be all that was reported was the facts. No matter what the reporter felt about the story it was "Just the facts mame" attitude that kept us informed and free to come to our own conclusions. Now they act we can't think. Like we don't know how to read between the lines and let us form our own opinion. Really sad if you ask me.

When I cite opinion pieces, it is to present an opinion not a fact.

The fact that an opinion was considered worthy of being printed in a major publication shows that the opinion is held by more than just one or two individuals, which is the standard rhetorical way of dismissing an opinion: "Oh, it seems like you're the only one who thinks that so we we're ignoring you now..."

Nope, sorry. This opinion appeared in a respected publication like the Wall Street Journal. It's not just my opinion:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487048...

The Coming Deficit Disaster

"Recently, the White House signaled that it will get serious about reducing the deficit next year—after it locks into place massive new health-care entitlements. This is a recipe for disaster, as it will create a new appetite for increased spending and yet another powerful interest group to oppose deficit-reduction measures...

"Mr. Obama and his advisers say they understand these concerns, but the administration's policy choices are the equivalent of steering the economy toward an iceberg."

"An audit of the bill by Richard Foster, chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, found that the pace of national health-care spending will increase by 2.1% over 10 years, or by about $750 billion. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's bill grows just as fast as the House version. In this way, the bills betray the basic promise of health-care reform: providing quality care at lower cost. "

See, if I wrote that myself, you could say it's just my opinion and nobody agrees with me.

But the fact that I can produce an opinion piece from the WSJ that says it, then it's not just me.

Now you can bash away that it's just partisan neocon fascist propaganda - but it's still not just me.

How does it feel, now that it's the liberals feeling the press breathing down the backs of their necks for a change?

Under the so-called Newspaper Revitalization Act, newspapers could operate as nonprofit companies for educational purposes and would have a status similar to that of public broadcasters. Cardin says his legislation is aimed primarily at helping local and small town newspapers, not big conglomerates. Giving non profit status and tax breaks to small newspapers who are losing money and probably don't pay much in taxes, anyway is hardly a bailout.

Simply because a newspaper article is an opinion piece, it does not make it any less valid with regards to the facts of an issue. Often, those who write these opinion pieces "fact check" their information more thoroughly than the so called "news reporters" on channels like MSNBC, ABC or CBS.

Also, it is always interesting to hear Liberals complain about the "source" of information when it pertains to anything anti-Obama...yet they never give a crap when the sources slam the other side, no matter how preposterous and outrageous the claims or information given.

The truth is, most Liberals can not only "not handle the truth"...but they don't even want to hear it! To most Liberals, the truth is whatever their Liberal media outlets tell them it is...and whatever comes from the lips of their Messiah...Obama. Hell...need proof of Liberal bias? Just look at how they cry and whine over the coverage of ACORN and it's problems. Liberals actually DEFEND ACORN behavior, and try to rationalize it by saying they are "just trying to help the community".

Most Liberals are liars, hypocrites, and pious, sanctimonious ***holes!

At least they have quotes and maybe a link to the quote, if we're lucky

One of my pet peeves is the amount of accusing posts with no link.

The very amusing part, when I ask for a link, I get mostly thumbs down.

Just goes to show how stupid some people are.

.

Yahoo answers is a source of entertainment and you won't find many facts or legitimate answers here.

What exactly makes a "Valid" news source?

Can you trust CNN? I don't

Plus, much of what is written here "IS" opinion. Do you want a link to "Someone Else's" opinion?

Links are important for the basic facts that opnions are based on, but claiming a particular news source is not legitimate is just kind of silly. I know for a fact that CNN has created news stories and suppressed news stories in the past. I don't trust them. But facts are stubborn things.

Because many of the questions here are only efforts to spread propaganda and not legitimate efforts to ask about issues of political significance.

Most opinion pieces are supported by facts.

I don't know, why does anyone make baseless claims? Why did you make yourself look like an idiot by claiming Democratic presidents don't start wars, only Republicans do?

And the word is cite, not site.