I haven't read the article, but I agree with Holmes's statements about its status. Tierney's column is not a news column-- it's a news-based opinion column (like the articles on Slate, say). On the progression news articles->news analysis pieces->columns by people like Tierney->op-eds and columns on the op-ed page->masthead editorials, it's pretty far towards the opinion side of the spectrum.
That said, Tierney's generic problem is that he mixes relatively interesting science reporting with relatively stupid and biased political (and political/science, like global warming) columns. I find that he ranges about 50% good, 25% some good and some annoying, and 25% trash, which is an annoying mix.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
cerebralpaladin.livejournal.com at 09:11pm on 15/07/2008![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
That said, Tierney's generic problem is that he mixes relatively interesting science reporting with relatively stupid and biased political (and political/science, like global warming) columns. I find that he ranges about 50% good, 25% some good and some annoying, and 25% trash, which is an annoying mix.