Op Ed: WHY 'Informed Opinion' Will Always Beat Out Any Level Of 'Feelings'

(EUGENE, Ore.) - One day I happened into the STATESMAN JOURNAL newsroom just in time to witness an historic event. An angry politician had cornered Editor Sprague, was haranguing him, and stated: “...AND my opinion is just as good as YOURS !”.

He was reacting to a Sprague Editorial strongly opposing the politician’s questionable costly project. SO also-Governor Sprague set him straight. What he said then is well worth putting on record here, too, for very obvious reasons apparent to any serious reader of our Comments: “You did not really have an opinion. A respectable opinion is based on information, knowledge, experience --AND cogitation. All you had was personal feeling.”

It was Editor Sprague’s emphasis on “cogitation” that riveted the statement into my professional memory. That clear declaration by also-Oregon Governor Sprague has served me well ever since. It can and should serve as an excellent guide for anyone preparing a Comment for publication here: Feeling, no matter how intense, is not truly opinion, which must involve both information and cogitation.

“Feeling” is simply (and only) an intuitive mental state, usually emotional, often built on misinformation and reflecting bias, recognized or unconsciously involved. Because YOU feel it is so does NOT make it so in fact.

Cognitive research clearly demonstrates a complex feeling-process leading to strongly-felt statement as if it were fact. That failure in personal communication now often affects public opinion, when not properly recognized and offset by serious further study of declaration based only on “feelings”.

Facts for wise decision emerge only after cogitation to create the complete picture. Within the next minute, Sprague --as was his wont as nationally-known Editorialist-- really nailed down precisely what he meant: “What you have,” he told the politician, still steaming, “we call in the shop here ‘a belly-button opinion’...because everyone has one and they are all about the same.”

Thus Governor Sprague made his point, penetrating the politician, who departed, muttering but muted. That did it for me: I have the dialog posted over my computer as I write. Longtime cognitive research proves nearly everyone seeks out sources they agree with, avoiding those demanding effort. That facilitates strong expression without the cogitation accuracy demands.

Those research findings reinforce the wisdom of Editor/Governor Sprague’s words. He learned early-on pragmatic effort was demanded to find reliable sources, gather clear, comprehensive information, then cogitate.

Only then does “the big picture” actually emerge. He shared widely felt appreciation that most persons stop far too soon in preparing any cogent statement.

That’s especially true for those shared publicly by Internet display for the whole world to see. Rapid comment, too often UN-thinking, is all too easy. Journalists seek out many reliable sources for major stories, sometimes running into the hundreds.

For my Op Eds, the total averages nearly fifty: Tested-reliable Internet sources; books; national and specialist magazines; personal/professional contacts, by both Internet and ‘phone; files and operational notes; accumulated over the years. Most persons commenting reflect only surface-skimming feelings built from life experience; some do report academic or special training as “right to speak”.(No --30-year/old college notes do NOT an opinion make !)

That deplorably shallow preparation shapes too-simplified responses. Weak-reed resources will shape and distort many inevitable democratic decisions. In these 21st Century days of rapid, radical, even revolutionary developments, that is definitely, damningly destructive of basic past principles, pronouncements and possibilities. Too many of today’s issues, problems, events and possibilities are fragmentarily reported.

We suffer from a failing print/communication establishment once noted for its probing and often prescient curiosity, dedicated to commonweal service. Increasingly responsible citizens seek out superior-quality widely-tested information from overwhelming alternative sources now broadly available.

The Internet has proven an easily-accessed and invaluable source for all, and deserves even broader usage as a basic resource. It is an immutable fact of journalistic life that one gets pushed --by either story/assignment or personal innate curiosity coupled with life-contacts-- into a very wide variety of learning situations.

One MUST learn before one can begin to WRITE competently, about ANY subject --if the written words are to have sensible, rational application for readers.

You do not last long on any newspaper/magazine or broadcast job otherwise. SOME of what one learns then sticks --in memory, in attitude, in actual work-application-- in a way not always understood or appreciated at the time.

Much later that learning may well prove to be of precise and high-potential value. In reality, that background --as it grows and develops both variety and value for its reflections of realities-- is the real stock-in-business for ANY writer.

For many who seek to serve as “editorialists” or Op Ed writers in today’s Internet publications it is a demanded requirement. The universally-accepted foundation-pattern for all meaningful communication, among those who study its many forms and formulas, is: “WHO says WHAT to WHOM in WHAT CHANNEL --for WHAT PURPOSE”.

That lays bare every essential element, present whether recognized or not, unavoidably shaping every printed or spoken word we share --with WHO as the key that opens the door to all the rest. When ANY element is missing from comprehension, then reader/listener must --consciously or otherwise--make SOME assumption(s).

That unavoidable action often attributes undeserved acceptance -- with no real basis for full understanding and trust deceitfully sought. That fact-of-life --well understood by all who must work with information and its transformation into any form of learning-- too often, today, shapes and too often allows both distortion and perversion of realities, by lack of the essential-test provided when all elements are known.

It is propaganda-development research that gives us these insights, as well as basic educational probing into processes demanded of teachers and their learners.

Unfortunately, there are many today who count precisely and unfailingly on this simple, easy failure in communicationUnfortunately that allows canny/cunning imposition of misinformation on many never aware of the process.

There really is a Far Right “noise machine” set up decades ago, lushly financed ever since, working all that time to discredit, defy, deny and defeat any and all real progressive action.

Hidden behind the false front of political party procedures, the net impacts have grossly distorted and perverted most of the processes of our democracy.

We now find dollar-power substituted for essential, responsible citizen decision.

But the wit, wisdom and will of our American people can overcome every instance of such malignant action --so long as our citizens will seek for themselves reliable and trustworthy sources for “the big picture” --built by the act of cogitation once thoroughly informed.

Henry Clay Ruark is the one of, if not the most experienced, working reporter in the state of Oregon, and possibly the entire Northwest. Hank has been at it since the 1930's, working as a newspaper staff writer, reporter and photographer for organizations on the east coast like the Bangor Maine Daily News.
Today he writes Op-Ed's for Salem-News.com with words that deliver his message with much consideration for the youngest, underprivileged and otherwise unrepresented people.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Cargill March 1, 2009 9:17 am (Pacific time)

For decades now, public education teaches very little about the early history of our country. Students know about "MY RIGHTS," but know very little about the incredible sacrifice our ancestors went through to give us this country, and how to view history through a non-judgemental prism on how it unfolded, free of contemporary judgement, especially by taking events out of context. To get back to what we are, we must shrink government and allow for the "individual" to pursue "life, liberty, and happiness", unencumbered by a government who tells you how you're going to go about it.

Thomas February 26, 2009 10:29 am (Pacific time)

President Jefferson was a force of nature and as I posted earlier we were lucky to have his leadership when we were developing as a nation. Many people attempt to belittle this individual, but they do so by making value judgements on him based on current mores/values, which those trained in historical analysis understand that this distorts historical interpretation.

Editor: So screwing the slaves is something that was culturally acceptable then? Did that meet the moral code of 1775? You blow me away Thomas with some of this stuff. Do you really think wives didn't care about their husbands being unfaithful then? Thomas Jefferson was a disciplined pot grower, that much is history, but the rest is pretty hard to be sure about, unless it is a direct matter of recorded history. I certainly think he was possibly less cruel as a slave owner than some, but isn't that like saying Hanz isn't a bad guy because he didn't kill as many Jews in the concentration camp as Franz?

Henry Ruark February 25, 2009 2:48 pm (Pacific time)

Thoms et al: Do you wish to share refs. to Jefferson ? Mine here number around a dozen; will cite for same from you, with ID to show good faith, sent to Tim: Disagree re Founders on several pertinent points; they were indubitably for strong government,which may not now translate for you, esp. with biased view re city situations, with which we must cope pragmatically rather than theoretically, as you seem to do here. Slavery-attitude is key, in case your sensitivity at new low; how can one write re equality and freedom while still in possession ? Jefferson did, understandably for his time, non-workable now even if evil practice still in place somewheres. We honor, respect, and enjoy much he created as Americans, but he deserves better true treatment than you give him. For me, he would cherish Obama approach, particularly since he was dedicated-then to slave-ownership, seeing it as indication that we may someday make it the rest of the way to what his Constitution states.

Thomas February 25, 2009 10:15 am (Pacific time)

Thomas Jefferson would certainly reject current government economic policy, he was a small government "Founder" (as were all the Founding Fathers) who strongly opined that government was to have close scrunity and oversight by the people. He also held a strong antipathy for cities and other large populated areas. The current political make-up of our large urban areas provides irrefutable evidence that this antipathy for these locales was right on the mark. Political policies that come out of urban areas frequently do not have an understanding of rural needs. As far as his slave-owning, what does that have to do with our present time? It was people like him that put policies in place that led to the discontinuance of slavery, an institution that has been around for literally thousands of years (and the majority of slaves were white people) and is still being practiced in Africa. One could spend literally hundreds of hours reading about Jefferson and his writings. He was a man of passionate opinions and we Americans are very lucky for his early leadership.

Henry Ruark February 25, 2009 8:01 am (Pacific time)

Thomas et al: Somehow that from Jefferson rings a bit hollow, given his reputation with words vs his slave-owning reality. Context of his own times is surely "the difference" now. OR do you prefer to continue false process of feelings vs information, knowledge, dialog shaping all of life for cooperative consensus, vs debate pitting political wordsmiths against each other, paid by "corporate campaign contributions" ? Read: bribery via a paid/for Supremes error. I believe Jefferson would be first to make fundamental and inevitable choice, given the complex challenges of this 21st Century with two BILLION new "middle-class" now arrived in developing nations. See current issue of The ECONOMIST 22-pp. special report.

Henry Ruark February 24, 2009 7:34 pm (Pacific time)

To all: After President Obama's very brilliant, challenging and promising presentation just completed, now we know who and what stands in the way. For any "nattering nabobs of negativity", as in Nixon's time (via Agnew), we can now separate those who understand and help at every level from those who simply do not "get it" yet --some never will-- and find themselves still able to pander for political partisanship now very clearly a continuing deeply damaging departure from true love of country, Constitution and cooperation for the commonweal as demonstrated by desperate needs now being fully addressed by all others.

Henry Ruark February 24, 2009 3:46 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Sorry did not sign "Anon" to Thomas - inadvertent. Re "comes down to substantive proof...MUST choose whom to believe" --that fits like glove re Keynesian approach vs classic-Mise one already tested-ad-failed ever since Reagan began its use. NO DOUBT left with debacle around globe, nations seeking further Keynesian steps; see ECONOMIST,FORTUNE, any other noted source. CANNOT turn anywhere else than to government for massive sums now required; only other way is wide war far too costly otherwise as well as in blood. This way rational management may prevail again -all that's left since "miracle of market" now horrendously collapsed.

Thomas February 24, 2009 1:59 pm (Pacific time)

I recall a quote by Thomas Jefferson that I must paraphrase: "... I am more concerned about the opinion of someone who works the soil than one who works with words..." Opinions, we all have them, and they all have value. I believe are main debating point revolves around sources and their perceived legitamacy. Of course I'm probably wrong.

Anonymous February 24, 2009 12:13 pm (Pacific time)

Thomas et al: Media failings due to technological change, poor business model and management much more than anything else: see numerous previous Op Eds; been so writing since '50s. For sources comes down to substantive proof of pudding , simple in some cases, doubtful in many, impossible to achieve in a few.BUT one MUST choose whom to believe !! Paranoid political/pander poor tool... Also one must overcome built/in bias and impossible to avoid shaping by personal background and contact with persons near/dear teaching by presence, potent presumptions and prescience in every life. Mirror test" via close scrutiny while reading word for word content can help. No wonder we disagree ! But that's both most potent value and obstacle; with honest open approach, "see with own eyes", "evaluate with own mind" by far the most trusty method. Thanks to all for strong participation here, and keep on dialog, with commonsense preparation prior to too easy unsheathing of "feeling" only.

Thomas February 24, 2009 10:15 am (Pacific time)

The below statement is as good as the sources one uses. If one rejects the sources, then we still have one opinion v.s. another opinion, informed or not. Excellent current examples would be the scientific estrangement happening between those who debate Global warming, now called Climate Change by many. In the area of economics the wide variety of opinions is immense, and that includes recognized experts such as Nobel winners. Suffice, opinions are best when standards are recognized as legitimate by all, and that's the rub, because subjective feelings frequently become juxtaposed into one's opinions. "Easy: Simply suppply solid source, nationally known as nonpartisan, reliable, stating factual foundation for your original statement. WIthout that what you have is personal feeling unworthy of wide belief without further substance provided by others with further background and training as "information" resources. That's whole point of Op Ed which some seem to miss." I would add that newspaper and television news subscribers/viewers have shown that op ed opinions are losing their relevance as they cancel subscriptions and discontinue viewership.

Henry Ruark February 24, 2009 8:55 am (Pacific time)

To all: Con wrote:"...who is to say one informed opinion is better than another informed opinion? I have noticed many who call one's opinion uninformed because it is in conflict with theirs." Easy: Simply suppply solid source, nationally known as nonpartisan, reliable, stating factual foundation for your original statement. WIthout that what you have is personal feeling unworthy of wide belief without further substance provided by others with further background and training as "information" resources. That's whole point of Op Ed which some seem to miss. Your feeling valuable, esp. when backed by others qualified. BUT otherwise remains ONLY YOUR feeling; as made clear,"everybody has one...". Which is why journalists seek out multiple qualified sources, check vs each one, THEN cogitate for report... IF you willing to settle any and all exceptional issues via your own b-b massage, can so operate, at cost now highly obvious in Comments...and also destructive of democracy well served by original purpose of "free press" via Constitution.

Vic February 24, 2009 7:36 am (Pacific time)

Well said, conservative. Opinions are just that...one person's perspective. No matter how learned one may be, we still see the world through the lens of our life's perspective. We cannot escape that. The word "opinion" was never meant to mean unassailable and fully researched fact. And, one mans facts are another mans fallacies. I think feelings are behind most all noble and noteworthy actions of mankind. It wasnt logic that caused the young man to stand in front of the tank at Tienamen Square, or Rosa Parks to refuse to give up her seat. Maybe informed opinion is like the steering and feeling is the accelerator..without one, the other is useless.

Henry Ruark February 23, 2009 8:20 pm (Pacific time)

Con: You won't mind abbreviation, which surely seems to fit here and now. Yours re one opinion vs another rationally breaks down to who says what to whom for what purpose --i.e. same pattern cited. THAT in turn reduces to whom is best "informed" NOT to guess-timate future but to reduce past to certainty via fact. Thus Sprague point stands strong and true as reported. It IS fact that he so declared. Do you wish to set your feelings vs his observation and conclusion ? If so, others will form their own "opinion", regardless of what either of us says further here. You are welcome to your opinion but not your own facts. It IS fact he was editor and governor and did so state, which was what I then reported. Re generation of current world debacle,information again counts. See current ECONOMIST for 22-pp. worldwide report outreaching anything you could possibly bring to bear --not "down-putter", just flat-out fact --as will soon report here. Do you usually surveil The ECONOMIST ?? Re history, will trade my ten refs.used for any you can cite; ID to Editor Tim for direct contact.

Conservative February 23, 2009 6:18 pm (Pacific time)

As we all know this country was founded on the principal of the "pursuit of life, liberty and happiness" of the "individual." The founders were about small government that answered to the people who they served, not the other way around as we see today in many socialistic forms of government and ones based on theology, etc. . Newspapers played a valuable role at one time, but their value has been steadily declining, and now many are going the way of the dinosaur. Many people are no longer buying into their opinions. What makes this country great are the individuals that make it up. Just like it is the small business enterprises out there, like this website, that provide the lifeblood for not only our economy, but the very essence of what keeps our country free and strong. There are many informed opinions as well as uninformed opinions out there, who is to say one informed opinion is better than another informed opinion? I have noticed many who call one's opinion uninformed because it is in conflict with theirs. Just look at the intense debates on different economic ideologies, or a whole slew of other topics. Many financial experts believe we can avoid a depression if the government stops this overspending mania, we shall see.

stephen February 23, 2009 6:02 pm (Pacific time)

I gave you a name of a documentary to watch. All documented facts. It was even free on google video. Endgame, by Alex Jones. Did you watch it?

Henry Ruark February 23, 2009 1:07 pm (Pacific time)

Con-S: Beg to differ, sir ! Without doubt history shows "the informed" led our national development, starting with those who participated in the elite formation of The Federalist Papers --first real dialog-then, widely newspaper reported at the time. Will you contend the Founders NOT "informed" --and passionate about learning by sharing, with dialog as their chosen channel ?? !! Re "individual" building the U.S., impossible. Had to be combination of what goverment made possible, information to individuals from all sources, surely including the newspaper and growing magazines, and the drive for democracy strongly exemplified by what came to be known worldwide as "American exceptionalism" --a set of characteristics, still highly evident, setting us apart from all others, even then, due to circumstance and personalities involved from pre-Revolution. moresoon on this, at heart of changes in people, patterns and governance now, with 21st Century door already jarred open by worldwide Depression threatening developing middle class groups worldwide.

Henry Ruark February 23, 2009 1:10 pm (Pacific time)

Cody: Sometimes curiosity gets nose knocked, but in reporter that's name of the game...and when one can catch a Sprague in action, you takes any chance... This is honest true story, did happen just as told...

Cody February 23, 2009 12:50 pm (Pacific time)

Loved this Henry, and the quote is just...amazing.

Conservative February 23, 2009 12:39 pm (Pacific time)

So I wonder why the newspapers have been experiencing a steady decline in readership subscriptions? This decline began long before the current economic downturn. Could it be that the masses are actually more informed than some think they are and can make informed choices? Where are they going to get their info now? I learned long ago not to underestimate how intelligent people are, afterall it was the "individual" who built this country, not big government nor the news media.

[Return to Top]