It comes across like an editorial, not a well balanced article presenting both sides of an issue. And while you've captured all the big issues two details that bothered me include: A. the fact that they cite the high number of women earning Ph.Ds in psychology despite the fact that psychology is pretty consistently mocked for not being 'real' science, a trend that's correlated with women taking over the field and B. the fact that one of Pinker's listed credentials is being related to her brother just serves to highlight the gender discrimination.
I'm not sure, but from the fact it was written by Tierney (who used to be what I thought of as the gently-conservative voice on the op/ed page) and has a generic title under which it appears ("Findings"), I suspect that functionally it is an editorial. Might be more clear in the print edition, but this is probably his recurring column on whatever vaguely scientific he wants to write about, which just happens to have gotten a lot of attention this week.
I think it is a column rather than a strict article, but given its location and non-formal-editorial status I feel like he has more responsibility to present both sides of the issue, even if he then comes to a firm conclusion on one side.
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
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.