1. “Writing a Convincing Editorial”
by Robert W. Trancinski (
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11069)
1. Focus on a central theme.
The single greatest error made by beginning writers is trying to
say too much.
The error comes from the belief that, in order to be convincing,
an argument must be utterly comprehensive, addressing every
possible issue that relates to it.
However, no argument is effective unless it can be absorbed
ands remembered by the reader.
An effective editorial must be essentialized, focusing only on the
most important issues and integrating them into on graspable
whole.
Note: A typical editorial is between 700-800 words.
2. 2. Know the viewpoint you have
to refute.
Although your emphasis should always be on the positive point you
are trying to convey, every editorial is also trying to answer or refute
a commonly held position.
You are usually trying to answer 2 positions: the liberal and the
conservative, subjectivism and intrinsicism, collectivism and
individualism, etc.
It’s important to understand what those potions are, so that you can
provide the evidence that will be most convincing to your audience.
The basic principle is that, to convince your reader, you must
provide him/her with the necessary information to correct what you
think are existing errors.
(On a personal note, in order to promote your credibility and good
will toward your readers, you should acknowledge the merits of
opposing arguments rather than simply dismissing them.)
3. 3. Make inductive arguments.
Your conclusion will be more persuasive if it’s based on
probability not dogmatic certainty.
A lot of public policies are based on inductive scientific
observations. Specific instances lead to a probable,
general conclusion.
The weakness of a deductive argument based on
certainty is the assumption that the reader already
accepts the certainty of your specific conclusion. In
other words, deductivity assumes the reader
understands your basic opinions/principles in the same
way you do. Thus, your basic premise might come off as
arrogant or condescending.
4. Inductive, continued….
Example: A deductive argument against affirmative action might
look like this:
“Racism, we know, is evil. Racism is defined as judging people and
dispensing rewards and punishment on the basis of race rather than
individual merit. But affirmative action is just such a policy of racial
preferences. Therefore, affirmative action is evil.”
Thus, some readers might say, “I don’t agree with your definition of
racism. I think racism means the oppression of people of color by a
white majority.”
Or another person might say, “You are oversimplifying. The
government should repair the historical wrongs of past policies by giving
preferential treatment now.”
Thus, a deductive argument does not answer these objections because
it doesn’t address a whole range of concrete facts. It rests it entire
validity on the reader’s agreement with a single definition.
5. Inductive, continued….
Presenting an inductive argument requires that you provide
concrete examples and show how they lead to your conclusion.
Arguing inductively by using concrete, specific examples put your
generalized conclusions on a solid foundation.
You have to be selective; you cannot give every fact on which your
conclusion is based , because that would include the whole sum of
your concrete knowledge.
The reader has to provide that complete range of facts for
him/herself, based on his/her own observations.
By grounding your arguments in well-selected concrete examples,
you can indicate to th reader the basic steps that validate your
conclusion.
6. 4. Base moral evaluations on
the facts.
Just as factual statements must be based on induction, so moral invectives
must be justified by factual arguments.
Otherwise such invective will be interpreted as name-calling and dogmatic
zealotry. And you lose credibility.
If you decide to invoke some very strong language then make sure your
evidence is just as strong.
Example: If you have solid evidence to show that the global-warming scare is
based on an assault on objective science, then you can call its proponents
“dishonest.”
If you can show that affirmative action punishes the competent for no other
reason than skin color, then you can call the program a strong invective (such as
“vicious”).
If you can indicate the facts that make a given person or action evil, then you can
call that person “evil.”
Remember, that casually throwing around such words without real evidence
undermines your credibility and thus your argument.
7. 5. Rely on the reader’s implicit
knowledge and values.
The flip side of the need for induction and for fact based
moral judgments is that you don’t have to validate
everything from the ground up. If you did, even the
simplest argument would require a lengthy essay.
There are certain ideas and values that you can take for
granted….if they are widely accepted, and if they are not
fundamentally at issue in the debate.
Also, you can assume that on some level your reader
values reason and knows he/she has to accept the facts.
If he/she doesn’t than there’s no point in arguing. No
arguement you offer can do any good if he/she places
his/her wishes above reality.
8. Generally, you can rely on basic Western values that are generally
accepted by your audience. For example: individual judgment vs.
conformity, individual happiness vs. total self-abnegation, work vs.
parasitism, etc.
You can also rely on more concrete conclusions that have been
thoroughly demonstrated by historical fact, such as the Dark ages
are an example of an era ruled by religion, the Nazis were bad guys,
etc.
The importance of this point is that you don’t have to validate the
whole of western philosophy all the way down to meta ethics and
concept formation in order to establish your point
As long as you can appeal to these basic, implicitly accepted facts
and values, you have sufficiently demonstrated your point.
9. 6. It is more important to be
clear than to be eloquent.
Most beginning writers feel that it is important for them to
attempt a colorful, engaging, or eloquent writing style.
This attitude can create 2 problems:
First, it paralyzes your mind. Instead of giving yourself the
simple instruction, “Come up with an example of a negative
effect of affirmative action,” you give yourself the impossible
instruction of “come up with a ringing phrase that will impress my
audience.”
Secondly, this approach tends to produce writing that sounds
brilliant or witty on a superficial level, but which doesn’t deliver a
clear message.
Thus, the writer ends up relying more on ridicule of opposing
viewpoints in place of substantive arguments.
10. Clarity, continued….
The primary goal of writing is to be clear: to convey
one’s conclusion and the evidence for it in a manner that
the reader can easily understand.
Eloquent phrases, vivid images, and humorous
examples are only valuable if they advance that goal.
With practice you will develop a more eloquent and
engaging style as you get more practice at writing
clearly.
In the meantime, however, a prosaic editorial that
persuades the reader is better than a colorful collection
of “sound bites” that add up to nothing.
11. 7. End on a call to action.
The purpose of an editorial is not merely to inform the
reader but to motivate him/her to take action.
This action may range from rejecting a widespread
ideas, to changing his/her lifestyle, to opposing new
legislation or voting for a presidential candidate.
Always remember that editorials are not a forum for
mere abstract, academic observations. You are offering
practical guidance.
You are advising the reader to oppose (or encourage)
restrictions on fossil fuels, to speak out against (or for)
affirmative actions, or call your senator to register his/her
disapproval of a proposed law. (Parentheses are my wording.)
12. 8. Good writing comes from
exhaustive editing.
This type of writing is not a stream of consciousness process in which one
waits for “inspiration” and, when it comes, passively transcribes the product
onto paper.
This writing process consists of the methodical examination and re-
examination of ideas.
Just as you can’t expect to come up with a right answer to every problem off
the top of your head, so you can’t expect your first draft to be brilliant. In
fact, most first drafts are pretty bad.
Editing consists of asking a whole range of questions pertaining to every
aspect of your editorial. On the highest level, this includes:
Is my theme the best one, or am I ignoring a more fundamental issue?
On the lower level: Is the second point of my argument necessary to
demonstrate my theme, or does it divert the reader’s attention onto a tangent?
On the lowest level: Is the grammar of this sentence too complicated? Is this the
right word, or is there another one that captures my meaning more exactly?
13. These questions are the process by which you
create the final, finished product.
When you have completed that process, you will
have achieved an inestimable value:
You will know that you have produced, not a hodge-
podge of whatever ideas came off the top of your
head, but a carefully crafted argument that is logically
structured, clearly expressed, and convincing to your
readers.
14. Theme, continued….
Example: global warming
Think of all the various arguments surrounding this
issue:
Scientific arguments for/against global warming
The nature of the scientific consensus on global warming
The effect on human life of restricting fossil fuels
The possibilities of sustainability
Environmentalists and credibility
Factual evidence vs. any potential hidden agendas
The role of government funding of science
The intrinsic value of nature
Any connection between environmentalism and altruism
15. To present all of these points in one editorial would overwhelm the
reader.
To essentialize the material, it is necessary to organize it around
one central message or theme.
Which theme you choose depends, to some extent, on your
knowledge and on your readers’ context.
For example, a conservative stance might look like this:
“Global warming claims are refuted by the scientific facts.”
There is no real scientific consensus on global warming.”
The global-warming campaign is a product of the politicization of science.”
A liberal stance would look different:
“There is irrefutable scientific evidence of global warming.”
“Global warming is essentially caused by human beings.”
16. You have to decide which of these potential themes is
most important for you.
The theme you choose determines which points you
include, how you cover them, and what you leave out.
Having a clear grasp of your central theme allows you to
organize and integrate your piece, thus, making it more
comprehensible to the reader.
You do not need to name the theme explicitly in this type
of writing, but it is important to name it to yourself.
