This is the standard misattribution that comes up all the time in bad faith, especially online. "[Organization] published X, therefore that's what they believe."
No, the IMF/NYT/News channel (or whoever) publishes opinion pieces all the time without agreeing with them.
You seem unaware that there are many opinion or whatever sections within organizations that are designed to publish things they consider provocative and of sufficient quality (and possibly by people in sufficient power to make their opinions into fact). And excellent example is the NYT regularly publishes opinion pieces from politicians all around the political spectrum. In other cases (CNN's Crossfire was a very bad example of this idea) the same organization tries to publish both Y and !Y often side by side to present a fuller view.
I disagree. I would welcome you to search for any number of truly provocative topics and you will see a chasm bordering. It is rarely a question of 'sufficient quality' as such is in the eye of the beholder. The issue is that of whether it can garner maximum amount of eyes with a minimum amount of real scrutiny.
What you might think is provocative, I see simply as topics that are designed to induce 'engagement'. While the two overlap, those are not the same thing.
In the end, editors have to decide whether it goes in. There needs to be a sufficient 'will' to make it happen. My point stands. There needs to be an internal support for any opinion pieces ( since that is the counter example you went with ).
No, the IMF/NYT/News channel (or whoever) publishes opinion pieces all the time without agreeing with them.