The Value of A Polarizing Op-ed: Do We Have The Critical Thinking to Make it Worthwhile?

The Value of A Polarizing Op-ed: Do We Have The Critical Thinking to Make it Worthwhile?

Bias

Neutral Bias
This article has neutral bias with a bias score of 1.16 from our political bias detecting A.I.


Opinion Article
This is an opinion article. As such, the content below expresses the viewpoint of the author, not our site as a whole.


Your browser does not support the canvas element.

Janet Ybarra
Democrat
Former Washington Journalist
Contributor on The Bipartisan Press

Hover to Expand



When The New York Times this week published an opinion article, better known as an “op-ed,” by the deputy of the Taliban, the newspaper created a firestorm.

However, the article falls squarely in the tradition of op-ed pages of major American newspapers for decades. Op-eds, including the most polarizing opinion pieces such as the one penned by the Taliban spokesman, serve an important function, if only we are capable of enough critical thinking to make them worthwhile, according to Donna Halper, a media historian, professor, author and former radio broadcaster.

The Times attracted a fair bit of criticism with the publication of the article titled “What We, The Taliban, Want,” including an angry tweet from Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.)

These sorts of op-eds can serve an important purpose and are not meant merely to inflame the sensibilities of readers, Halper said.

The point is to read the opinion with a critical–but not cynical–eye.

“But what if the Taliban really are trying to be more modern? What if they really are interested in trying to come to some compromises?” Halper asked. “How should we in the West respond, or is it in fact not our business what Afghan citizens do in their country?

“I see opinion pieces as opportunities for debate and discussion, and I believe a piece like this provides both,” she added.

Halper said that she is skeptical about the Taliban still being good for women’s rights, and is dubious about their reading of Islam being the only acceptable reading.

Halper adds, however, that these sorts of articles won’t be helpful if they’re “just going to be weaponized to generate social media outrage.

“But if they can be the beginning of a serious and potentially productive discussion, if they can provide some possible solutions for contentious issues, and if they can lead to a conversation grounded in ethics rather than anger, then perhaps they can serve a good purpose–whether we agree with each piece or not.”

Content from The Bipartisan Press. All Rights Reserved.


[jetpack-related-posts]

Please note comments may not immediately appear as they pass through our spam queue.

COMMENTS (2)

  • comment-avatar

    While one could very convincingly argue that both the Taliban and Afghanistan had nothing whatever to do with 9/11 and thus there was no reason for the US to invade, which they did not, and the US need not, my only hesitation toward this, is that the Taliban are lying.
    Once with any real power, they never give it up while projecting force and terror to remain in power, recreating a Sunni Islamic theocracy everywhere they can.

  • comment-avatar

    While one could very convincingly argue that the Taliban and Afghanistan had nothing whatever to do with 9/11 and thus there was no reason for the US to invade, which they did not, and the US need not, my only hesitation toward this, is that the Taliban are lying.
    Once with any real power, they never give it up while projecting force and terror to remain in power, recreating a Sunni Islamic theocracy everywhere they can. The question becomes, does the west care and enough to spend more lives and treasure to prevent that.