OP, I know you’re the sole moderator here, but you should know that ABC News works differently from most outlets: their opinion articles are tagged “analysis”, which you can see by looking at their category “Analysis & Opinion” (that’s just a name for them; they’re all marked “analysis”). Thus, the post needs an ‘[Opinion]’ prefix per the guidelines, as ABC dressing it up under a different name doesn’t change its nature.

Thanks for the information. Looks like they do differenciate between opinion and analysis per www.abc.net.au/edpols/…/13644726.

Based on those definitions this article wouldn’t fall under opinion. It was posted by ABC editor and ABC is claiming responsibility for that content.

Understandable to take them at their word, and I wouldn’t begrudge you for keeping the title as-is given that page, but the page is complete BS – at least for their website.

If you again look at “Analysis & Opinion”, you’ll see there’s not a single article labeled “Opinion”, articles marked “Analysis” like “Are we outsourcing our souls to artificial intelligence?” are blatantly opinions, the sidebar on ABC’s website lacks any “Opinion” section, and even within this article, “X has the upper hand in this conflict” is an opinionated stance.

Saying “they differentiate between analysis and opinion” is untrue because they literally don’t have material marked as “Opinion”.

I haven’t checked all their content but at least going through the latest articles all of them are either by ABC editors or paid freelancers. From what I can see they don’t do guest op-eds where they shirk any responsibility for the content.

Saying “they differentiate between analysis and opinion” is untrue because they literally don’t have material marked as “Opinion”.

It’s possible they used to do them, but no longer does.

The motivation behind [Opinion] prefix is to avoid accrediting content to publications that they don’t explicitly endorse. In this case it looks like they do.

That said, I don’t disagree that the whole approach is confusing.