Though the Observer is already onto its second issue of the year, I want to take this opportunity to share a bit about what, in my opinion, makes or breaks an Opinions piece. Entering my final year of undergraduate study, I have had ample opportunity to write for a variety of publications. Serving as a Jewish sections editor on the Beacon magazine, as well as a staff writer on the Commentator, I’ve had the privilege of writing, reading, editing, and considering a variety of writing forums and styles. As a student of literary theory who possesses a particular interest in not only the content that is written but the form in which it is conveyed, I have spent much time reflecting on what “makes” a piece of writing succeed in its goals. This article is intended both for prospective Opinions contributors as well as for those who wish to refute an Opinions piece.
It is crucial for an Opinions writer to include, either introductorily or subsequently, their self-contextualization, an acknowledgement of their background, context, influences, and qualifications, before beginning to express an opinion. The recognition that one’s writing is a piece of opinion is crucial not only in terms of establishing humility (and popularity) with one’s readership, but also for the purpose of creating a division between various journalistic components. While I would argue the primary purpose in current formal journalism is the dissemination of information, the primary purpose for opinions pieces is the dissemination of personal attitudes towards information, and therefore mustn’t pose as information itself. An opinion is something that utilizes objective information, synthesizing it in order to create a unique perspective. An Opinions piece should also provide the reader with bare-bones information. Research substantiates the proposed attitudes and beliefs and assists the reader in finding a basis in reality for the writer’s views. By not accurately or entirely considering the multiplicity of factors that influence any given event, statement, or position, one does a disservice both to the reader, but also to oneself, as the writer invalidates his own claims without grounding them in reality. As the New York Times Opinions guidelines read, “It is a common mistake to believe that columns and editorials, unlike news articles, do not need to be thoughtful and measured. In truth, writing a column or editorial takes more reporting, not less.”
Perhaps the sorest spot an Opinions writer must come to terms with is the mandatory acknowledgement of a counterargument. It is quite easy to try and avoid including a counter-argument. Only a weak response to one’s counter-argument would run the risk of gaining dissidents. A clear understanding of possible objections and counterarguments voiced only gains a writer credibility and the compliment that he’s actually not an ignoramus, whatever his opinions may be. A strong counter-argument, responded to with a strong opinion founded in a basis in reality, is absolutely crucial to a piece one desires to be considered legitimate.
Finally, make sure your opinion is of consequence. Unless your point is to mock the futility of pointless opinion articles, your opinion is not worth publication if it does not express a sincere desire for others to accept it. Prove it is of consequence, and not necessarily in the grandiose terms of preventing world hunger of bringing world salvation, but even on the basis that refuting it is ignorant or anti-intellectual. Whatever the case may be, one’s opinion has to be made explicitly worthwhile to the reader.
These tips and guidelines are meant to serve not only in one’s writing of Opinions pieces (thought that is, of course, of primary concern), but also in the equally crucial task as a reader, of deciphering and evaluating an opinion piece, checking its validity, reliability, and creating one’s own opinion in response to it. Remember to question everything you read, of any form of journalism. But Opinions pieces perhaps beg that of the reader most vehemently, and are the product of such questioning most obviously.