Explaining or interpreting: This format is used to explain how and why a newspaper or magazine took a certain stance on a controversial subject. Criticizing: This format criticizes actions or decisions made on a third party’s part in addition to offering a better solution. It’s more to get the readers to see that there is a larger problem at hand. Persuading: This type is used to move the reader to action, concentrating on solutions, not the problem. Praising: This format is used to show support for people and organizations in the community that have done something notable. [3] X Research source
A good op-ed needs to contain at least one “point of enlightenment” which can be described as “an observation that is fresh and original. " So, get your facts from a number of different sources, pointing out patterns, impending consequences, or a hole in current analysis.
Keep it to about 600-800 words. Anything longer and you risk losing your reader. A short, snappy, fiery piece is much more captivating than a wordy lecture. Eliminate the jargon. Your audience is reading your article for information on something they seek to understand; using technical terms or specific jargon may be off-putting and make your article difficult to take in. Keep the lowest common denominator in mind.
Clearly state your argument. The rest of your editorial will be based on supporting this opinion. Make it as striking as possible. However, in doing so, never use “I”–it diminishes the strength and credibility of the paper and sounds rather informal. [4] X Trustworthy Source PubMed Central Journal archive from the U. S. National Institutes of Health Go to source
Include who, what, when, where, why, and how. Cover all your bases and pull in facts or quotations from relevant sources. This ensures that every reader has at least a base knowledge (and an non-skewed one) of the topic at hand.
It is fine to state positive things about the opposing side, as long as they’re factual. It shows that you are taking the moral high road and giving a balanced overview. If you neglect to air the good side of your opposition, your editorial will come off biased and uninformed. Give the opposition an actual argument, and a strong one at that. You gain nothing from refuting a non-issue. Make it clear their beliefs and what they’re advocating.
Start with strong reasons that only get stronger. Don’t feel limited to existing opinions–add your own, too. Whatever your reasons are, make sure to clearly come down on one side of the argument; there is no room for gray area here. Literary allusions are appropriate. It can lend to your credibility and learnedness. [3] X Research source Call to mind images of persons or times in the past that present an imagery to your reader.
Your solution needs to be clear, rational, and doable. It cannot only work in a vacuum. What’s more, it should be compelling. Ideally, your readers will be drawn to action with the information and answers you’ve presented.
End with a hard-hitting summary; you may have a few readers who scanned your piece absentmindedly. All in all, your audience should leave feeling more informed and moved to do something further about the issue.
If you’re working as part of an organization, make sure you haven’t misrepresented their viewpoints. Allow your group to go over the piece to make sure everyone (at the very least, the majority) is behind the arguments you’re about to make public. They can, simultaneously, present questions or ideas that you may have missed or glossed over.
