CHARACTERISTICS OF EDITORIAL WRITING

An editorial is an article that presents the newspaper's opinion on an issue. Editorials

are meant to influence public opinion, promote critical thinking, and sometimes cause
people to take action on an issue. In essence, an editorial is an opinionated news story.

Editorials have:

1. Introduction, body and conclusion like other news stories

2. An objective explanation of the issue, especially complex issues
3. A timely news angle
4. Opinions from the opposing viewpoint that refute directly the same issues the writer
addresses
5. The opinions of the writer delivered in a professional manner. Good editorials
engage issues, not personalities and refrain from name-calling or other petty tactics of
persuasion.
6. Alternative solutions to the problem or issue being criticized. Anyone can gripe
about a problem, but a good editorial should take a pro-active approach to making the
situation better by using constructive criticism and giving solutions.
7. A solid and concise conclusion that powerfully summarizes the writer's opinion.
Give it some punch.

Four Types of Editorials Will:

1. Explain or interpret: Editors often use these editorials to explain the way the
newspaper covered a sensitive or controversial subject. School newspapers may
explain new school rules or a particular student-body effort like a food drive.
2. Criticize: These editorials constructively criticize actions, decisions or situations
while providing solutions to the problem identified. Immediate purpose is to get
readers to see the problem, not the solution.
3. Persuade: Editorials of persuasion aim to immediately see the solution, not the
problem. From the first paragraph, readers will be encouraged to take a specific,
positive action. Political endorsements are good examples of editorials of persuasion.
4. Praise: These editorials commend people and organizations for something done
well. They are not as common as the other three.

Writing an Editorial

1. Pick a significant topic that has a current news angle and would interest readers.
2. Collect information and facts; include objective reporting; do research
3. State your opinion briefly in the fashion of a thesis statement
4. Explain the issue objectively as a reporter would and tell why this situation is
important
5. Give opposing viewpoint first with its quotations and facts
6. Refute (reject) the other side and develop your case using facts, details, figures,
quotations. Pick apart the other side's logic.
7. Concede a point of the opposition — they must have some good points you can
acknowledge that would make you look rational.
8. Repeat key phrases to reinforce an idea into the reader's minds.
9. Give a realistic solution(s) to the problem that goes beyond common knowledge.
Encourage critical thinking and pro-active reaction.
10. Wrap it up in a concluding punch that restates your opening remark (thesis
statement).
11. Keep it to 500 words; make every work count; never use "I"

A Sample Structure

I. Lead with an Objective Explanation of the Issue/Controversy.

Include the five W's and the H. (Members of Congress, in effort to reduce the budget,
are looking to cut funding from public television. Hearings were held …)

 Pull in facts and quotations from the sources which are relevant.
 Additional research may be necessary.

II. Present Your Opposition First.

As the writer you disagree with these viewpoints. Identify the people (specifically
who oppose you. (Republicans feel that these cuts are necessary; other cable stations
can pick them; only the rich watch public television.)

 Use facts and quotations to state objectively their opinions.

 Give a strong position of the opposition. You gain nothing in refuting a weak position.

III. Directly Refute The Opposition's Beliefs.

You can begin your article with transition. (Republicans believe public televison is a
"sandbox for the rich." However, statistics show most people who watch public
television make less than $40,000 per year.)

 Pull in other facts and quotations from people who support your position.
 Concede a valid point of the opposition which will make you appear rational, one who
has considered all the options (fiscal times are tough, and we can cut some of the funding
for the arts; however, …).
IV. Give Other, Original Reasons/Analogies

In defense of your position, give reasons from strong to strongest order. (Taking
money away from public television is robbing children of their education …)

 Use a literary or cultural allusion that lends to your credibility and perceived intelligence
(We should render unto Caesar that which belongs to him …)

V. Conclude With Some Punch.

Give solutions to the problem or challenge the reader to be informed. (Congress

should look to where real wastes exist — perhaps in defense and entitlements — to
find ways to save money. Digging into public television's pocket hurts us all.)

 A quotation can be effective, especially if from a respected source

 A rhetorical question can be an effective concluder as well (If the government doesn't
defend the interests of children, who will?)

 The Op-ed (opinion editorial) is current and timely, meaning it is based on recent news
stories that were published within the past week or so.

 The Op-ed has a local angle and is relevant to readers in the publication’s circulation area
(although this is not required, but it is a plus).

 The Op-ed runs no more than 800 words or less, about 600 is ideal.

 The Op-ed is clearly written, using simple language and not much jargon or academic
language, and uses correct grammar and punctuation.
 An op-ed needs to clearly state its argument or thesis in the first or second
paragraph and should then back up that argument with compelling, informed opinion.

 As the 24-hour news cycle picks up speed, the analysis of news stories is more immediate
than ever. Good op-eds speak to what's hot now; the best ones identify an issue before it
becomes a topic in the news.

 The subject matter should, in most cases, be relevant to a professor's academic area.
However, a psychology professor can certainly write a piece on a business topic, or a
political science professor can tackle a social trend, if they make a compelling and credible
argument.

 An op-ed is not a forum in which to philosophize or to celebrate the "gray areas" of a

controversial topic. This is the time to come down clearly on one side of an issue.
Remember: it's all about informed opinion.

 Op-eds can be co-authored - if it makes sense for a specific piece to have two authors.
Multiple co-authors should be avoided in drafting op-eds and left to "letters-to-the-editor"
 submissions.

 A good op-ed needs to contain at least one "point of enlightenment" which has often
been described as "an observation that is fresh and original."

 Although some Sunday opinion pages and special commentary forums publish pieces in the
1200-word range, it is best to keep an op-ed under 750 words in length. An excellent and
hard-hitting short piece in the 600-word ballpark is often a winner.

 If an op-ed openly criticizes current policies, it should provide clear and compelling
solutions.

 Keep punctuation simple. Avoid using exclamation points in an op-ed piece.

 Perhaps the most common complaint among opinion page editors who receive many
submissions from colleges and universities is that they are often filled with discipline-specific
jargon. Help potential op-ed authors on your campus realize that they should not attempt to
make the reader "work" to understand their point.

 The target readership is a general newspaper audience comprised of people from many
walks of life. The piece should be written with this general audience in mind. And
remember: a good op-ed piece ends with a hard-hitting summary or a thoughtful final
point.
A life for a life?
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:24 AM March 16, 2019

Gruesome indeed were the details that emerged following the discovery of the
body of Christine Lee Silawan, 16, in Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu.

Half of the skin on her face had been peeled away, down to the bone. Internal
organs from her neck were extricated, with, as a news item put it: “precise
incisions and cuts.” She had been stabbed 30 times in her torso and arms, and her
body dumped in a field with her underwear missing.
ADVERTISEMENT

Criminologists say that stabbing is such an “in your face” way of killing that often
there is anger and a personal grudge fueling the assailant. But what could a
teenage girl—who was, according to her mother, on her way home after helping
out in their parish church—have done to engender such hate?

Alarmed and outraged by Christine’s fate in the hands of her killer, netizens and
other concerned citizens have aired calls for the restoration of the death penalty,
something that President Duterte and his allies have repeatedly called for
especially in relation to crimes supposedly committed by drug addicts.

This is expected in the immediate wake of any horrific crime. Good citizens who
would otherwise hesitate before calling for others’ blood jump on the capital
punishment bandwagon and start baying for the life of the perpetrators, even
before any such suspects have been identified, tried and convicted. This is in the
belief that bringing the killer to justice, preferably by taking his or her life, would
even things up.

There is a sense of relief among ordinary folk who feel that the mere threat of
capital punishment would literally put the fear of God in the hearts and minds of
the criminally inclined. Then, too, there is the sense of justice felt by many, who
think the taking of a life (especially in such a bloodcurdling manner as Christine
underwent) is only fairly compensated by the taking of another.
But will executing killers—every time the State is able to track them down, try
them and then kill them—truly a guarantee of the safety and security of the rest of
us?

Unfortunately, no. Decades of research have proven that the death penalty does
not deter crime, with 88 percent of criminologists interviewed for a study
disagreeing that “death penalty can act as a deterrent or can lower the murder
rate.” The same study showed that there is little or no difference between the
deterrent effect of life imprisonment and of the death penalty. Other studies show
that it is not the fear of being put to death that makes a criminal hesitate, but
rather the certainty that he or she will be caught, prosecuted and punished.

In a 2004 decision, the Philippine Supreme Court acknowledged a staggering

71.77 percent rate of judicial error in death penalty cases in local courts—
meaning, three out of four Filipinos on death row shouldn’t even be there. And we
can’t discount the impact of power and social status on a person’s stint in prison or
in court. Thousands of poor suspects spend years behind bars without even so
much as a hearing, hampered in large part by incompetent or nonexistent legal
assistance. No mystery why the majority of prisoners, including those on death
row, belong to the poor.

Another problem with the death penalty is that it is beyond correction or

rectification. Once a person is put to death, he is dead, with no room left for second
thoughts, for further tests, or reconsidering the arguments used by the judge who
ordered that execution.

Certainly, Christine, whose life was taken in a particularly gruesome manner,

deserves justice. Her family and friends, too, are deserving of some form of
consolation, or the comfort of knowing that whoever was responsible for her
death will pay the price.
ADVERTISEMENT

But even the horrors of her death will not and cannot justify the taking of another
life. And indeed, using the violence used on Christine to whip up sentiment for the
restoration of the death penalty is itself a violation of Christine’s memory.

We honor best her short life by ensuring that the society we build after her demise
is safe, secure and just. This means working on the institutions that can best bring
this to fruition, not least of them a clean and competent police force and an
efficient, equitable court system.