Hubbry Logo
Op-edOp-edMain
Open search
Op-ed
Community hub
Op-ed
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Op-ed
Op-ed
Op-ed
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Journalism
Beats
Genres
Ethics and standards
Challenges
Public relations
News media
Newsroom

An op-ed, short for "opposite the editorial page", is a type of written prose commonly found in newspapers, magazines, and online publications.[1] They usually represent a writer's strong and focused opinion on an issue of relevance to a targeted audience. Typically ranging from 500 to 700 words, op-eds are distinct from articles written by the publication's editorial board and often feature the opinions of outside contributors.[2] Op-eds allow authors, not part of the publication's editorial team, to express opinions, perspectives, and arguments on various issues of public interest. Unlike traditional editorials, which reflect the opinion of the publication itself, op-eds offer independent voices a foundation to influence public discourse. The New York Times is widely credited with popularizing the modern op-ed format.[3]

Origin

[edit]

The "Page Op.", created in 1921 by Herbert Bayard Swope of The New York Evening World, is a possible precursor to the modern op-ed.[4] When Swope took over as main editor in 1920, he opted to designate a page from editorial staff as "a catchall for book reviews, society boilerplate, and obituaries".[5] Swope explained:

"It occurred to me that nothing is more interesting than opinion when opinion is interesting, so I devised a method of cleaning off the page opposite the editorial, which became the most important in America ... and thereon I decided to print opinions, ignoring facts."[6]

The modern op-ed page was formally developed in 1970 under the direction of The New York Times editor John B. Oakes. Media scholar Michael J. Socolow writes of Oakes' innovation:  

"The Times' effort synthesized various antecedents and editorial visions. Journalistic innovation is usually complex and typically involves multiple external factors. The Times op-ed page appeared in an era of democratizing cultural and political discourse and economic distress for the company itself."[4]

The newspaper's executives developed a place for outside contributors, with space reserved for sale at a premium rate for additional commentaries and other purposes.

The Washington Post too published its own version of the op-ed right before The New York Times debuted in September 1970. Significant differences between The Post's op-ed page and The Times's op-ed page include The Washington Post having no ads and no artistic component. In the 1930s, The Washington Post began referring to its commentary section as the "op-ed page", situated opposite its editorial page. The Los Angeles Times followed suit with a similar designation in the 1950s and 1960s, while The Chicago Tribune had tried a variation of this format as early as 1912.[4] That is to say that while we credit Oakes as the creator of the op-ed, the true origins of the op-ed are highly debated in the journalistic sphere.[3]

Culture

[edit]

With the development and availability of radio and television broadcasting as major information outlets, stakeholders and print journalism workers sought to increase or maintain their audience and relevance.[3] Major newspapers such as The New York Times and The Washington Post began including more opinionated journalism, adding more columns, and increasing the extent of their opinion pages to drive public participation and readership.[7]

This was exacerbated by the period, as world events like World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, and major cultural changes began to make the public restless. Editors wanted to keep up readership as newspapers began to go out of business; they also needed to find new ways to compete with the versatility of television and radio, which started to become commonplace in people's homes.[8] On the other hand, the general public wanted to have multiple points of view, as this time was also marked by a wave of liberalism, including the fight for gender equality and the civil rights movement.

Structure and features

[edit]

Op-eds feature a concise structure, with an average of under 700 words, and typically begin with an introduction.[9] They begin with a hook to engage readers, usually something outlandish or exaggerated for the shock factor. Then the author usually ties the intro together with a story related to them or an experience they had. Following this is the body, which has a tone that is usually persuasive and conversational, often divided into three or four sections, each presenting evidence or arguments supporting the thesis. They then tie the op-ed together with a conclusion or closing statement where a call to action is made.

Op-eds are written by a wide range of authors, including journalists, academics, politicians, and activists. Publications invite guest contributors to present various viewpoints, despite the viewpoints often being contradictory to the editorial's position on certain topics.[10] Today, op-eds are widely read across both traditional and digital platforms, and writers range from academics and activists to politicians and celebrities.

The op-ed is known for the diverse opinions of its columnists and can include media in a variety of forms including:

Rhetoric

[edit]

Op-eds are written to persuade, inform, or incite public debate, with rhetoric playing a vital role in achieving these goals. Contributors invited to write an op-ed for an editorial commonly use appeals to ethos (credibility), pathos (emotion), and logos (logic) to structure their arguments and connect with readers.[11][12]

  1. Ethos: Contributors often establish their credentials early to build credibility. For instance, a climate scientist's op-ed on climate change would typically begin with a brief mention of the author's background to emphasize their authority on the subject.
  2. Pathos: An emotional appeal is also a common tactic, with authors evoking sympathy, anger, or hope in order to drive people to action.
  3. Logos: Logical appeals are also achieved through well-reasoned arguments and evidence. Authors often use statistics, historical examples, and real-world scenarios to make their case compelling and hard to ignore.

In different media

[edit]

With the rise of digital platforms, op-eds have expanded beyond traditional print media. Online publications and blogs have become popular, and social media plays a significant role in disseminating and engaging with op-ed content. Additionally, op-eds are increasingly presented in audio and video formats, reaching audiences through podcasts and video essays. The internet and social media have further evolved the op-ed format. Platforms like HuffPost, Medium, and Substack allow virtually anyone to publish opinion pieces, which have been conflated with the op-ed to the point where the terms have become interchangeable. While they have always had a significant impact on public opinion, the digital age has allowed op-eds to influence the public more broadly and almost instantaneously.

Evolution of terminology

[edit]

In April 2021, New York Times opinion editor Kathleen Kingsbury announced the retirement of the term "op-ed" in favor of the more precise term "guest essay".[13] The main reason was that in the modern digital world in which millions of readers only read the Times online, it no longer made sense to speak of an article running "opposite the editorial page".[13] In Kingsbury's words: "It is a relic of an older age and an older print newspaper design".[13]

[edit]
  • "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration" (2018) - The New York Times: Written by an anonymous senior official in the first Trump administration, this op-ed created a significant public response by claiming that some within the administration were actively working to subvert certain presidential directives.
  • "Can America Prevent Russia from Using Low-Yield Nukes" (2018) - The Buzz: Written by author Mark B. Schneider, a senior analyst with the National Institute for PublicPolicy. This op-ed advises the U.S. to deploy low-yield nuclear warheads on submarines to counter Russia's strategy of using limited nuclear strikes for coercive advantage in conventional conflicts.[14]
  • "How Will the Mideast Bloodshed End? Not With a Bullet" (2024) - Los Angeles Times: Written by LZ Granderson, this article discusses the limitations of military solutions in the Middle East, emphasizing the need for humanitarian aid and diplomatic efforts to address the root causes of conflict and instability in Gaza and Lebanon.[15]

Possible conflicts of interest

[edit]

The relationship between op-eds, editors, and funding from interest groups has been a concern. In 2011, in an open letter to The New York Times, a group of U.S. journalists and academics called for conflict-of-interest transparency in op-eds.[16][17] Critics of op-ed journalism argue that it can oversimplify complex issues and may introduce bias, especially when written by people affiliated with powerful interest groups, corporations, or political entities. They argue that op-eds can become tools for misinformation, especially in today's highly polarized media environment, due to the lack of rigorous editorial oversight.[18]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Op-ed

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
An op-ed, short for "opposite the editorial page," refers to a or article expressing the personal opinion of a who is not a staff member of the publication. The term derives from its traditional placement on the page facing the content, which represents the publication's institutional viewpoint. Op-eds typically address current events, policy issues, or cultural topics, aiming to persuade readers through argument rather than report facts. The op-ed format originated in 1921 at the , introduced by editor Herbert Bayard Swope to feature diverse outside perspectives alongside the paper's own editorials. This innovation sought to broaden discourse by including contributions from experts, public figures, and citizens, fostering public debate on pressing matters. Over time, op-eds evolved from print exclusivity to digital platforms, maintaining their role as a venue for influential commentary that can shape policy and opinion, though they remain distinct from objective . Notable for their argumentative structure, op-eds often employ evidence, anecdotes, and to advance a , with selection based on timeliness, originality, and potential impact.

Terminology and Origins

Etymology and Definition

The term "op-ed" is an for "opposite the editorial page," denoting a section or article positioned across from the content, which traditionally featured unsigned pieces reflecting the publication's institutional views. This placement emphasized external perspectives, allowing non-staff contributors to present signed opinions on current events, policy, or social issues, often in a persuasive format aimed at influencing public discourse. Unlike s, op-eds are attributed to individual authors—typically experts, public figures, or commentators—and prioritize argumentative clarity over neutral reporting. The phrase originated in 1921 when Herbert Bayard Swope, editor of the New York Evening World, introduced the "Page Opposite Editorial" to diversify viewpoints beyond the paper's own stance, marking an early innovation in . By 1924, "op-ed" appeared in print as a descriptor for such features, per the 's earliest recorded usage, reflecting its rapid adoption amid growing demand for pluralistic debate in U.S. newspapers. A persistent misconception interprets "op-ed" as for "opinion editorial," but historical evidence confirms its spatial origin tied to rather than content type. In contemporary usage, "op-ed" extends beyond print to digital platforms, encompassing opinion essays in magazines, websites, and broadcasts that maintain the core traits of authorial and external sourcing, though without the literal "" positioning. This underscores op-eds' role as vehicles for evidence-based persuasion, frequently citing data or first-hand analysis to challenge prevailing narratives.

Historical Precursors to Modern Op-eds

The origins of opinion writing in print media trace back to 18th-century Britain, where periodical essays served as precursors to structured commentary pieces. and Richard Steele's , published daily from March 1, 1711, to December 6, 1712, featured unsigned but authored essays offering moral, social, and political observations intended to shape public thought. These essays, often satirical or advisory, modeled persuasive prose separated from mere news reporting, influencing later journalistic forms by emphasizing individual voice and public persuasion. In the American context, colonial newspapers from the late integrated opinion with nascent reporting, reflecting partisan affiliations. Benjamin Harris's Publick Occurrences Both Forreign and Domestick, issued on September 25, 1690, included interpretive commentary on events, though it was suppressed after one edition for its critical tone toward authorities. By the Revolutionary era, publications routinely hosted contributed essays and letters advocating positions, as exemplified by the Federalist Papers, a series of 85 essays by , , and , serialized in New York newspapers from October 1787 to August 1788 to promote ratification of the U.S. Constitution. This era's press, often subsidized by political parties, blurred lines between fact and advocacy, fostering a tradition of opinionated that prioritized over neutrality. The marked a shift toward delineating opinion spaces within newspapers. Horace Greeley, founding the on April 10, 1841, introduced practices to segregate factual news reports from and content, creating dedicated sections for commentary. This innovation addressed growing demands for objectivity in reporting while preserving arenas for signed or , directly paving the way for modern op-eds by institutionalizing as a distinct journalistic element. Such developments reflected broader efforts amid expanding and print circulation, with U.S. newspapers reaching over 52 million daily copies by 1900.

Historical Development

Early Opinion Journalism in Print

The emergence of in print is traced to early 18th-century , where periodicals like The Tatler (launched September 1709 by ) and The Spectator (March 1711 to December 1712, co-edited by Steele and ) introduced essay-style commentary on social customs, , and morals. These thrice-weekly and daily publications, respectively, featured unsigned or pseudonymous essays that blended , observation, and ethical instruction to engage middle-class readers, marking a shift from mere news reporting to persuasive, reflective prose. The Spectator alone produced 555 issues, achieving circulation estimates of several thousand copies per day through reprints and coffeehouse distribution, and established the periodical essay as a vehicle for influencing public sentiment without overt partisanship. This format influenced and colonial America, where newspapers increasingly incorporated commentary amid growing and . In England, by the mid-18th century, dailies like (1702 onward) evolved to include opinionated leaders on and , often anonymous to evade under laws like the Licensing Act of 1662 (expired 1695). American printers, starting with the Boston News-Letter (1704, the first continuously published colonial newspaper), reprinted British essays while adding local partisan views; for instance, James Franklin's New-England Courant (1721) featured satirical pieces by critiquing Puritan authorities, leading to its suppression in 1726. Such content blurred news and opinion, reflecting printers' roles as advocates rather than neutral observers. A pivotal advancement occurred during the American founding era with the , a series of 85 essays authored pseudonymously by , , and from October 1787 to May 1788. Published primarily in New York newspapers such as The Independent Journal and The New York Packet, these pieces systematically argued for ratifying the U.S. Constitution by dissecting Anti-Federalist critiques and elucidating mechanisms like checks and balances. Distributed widely via reprints across states, they exemplified print media's capacity for structured persuasion, influencing ratification debates and setting a model for policy-focused opinion writing that prioritized logical exposition over . Their enduring citation in legal scholarship underscores their role in embedding argumentative essays within journalistic practice. By the early 19th century, these precedents coalesced into regular editorial columns in U.S. papers, as seen in Hamilton's founding of the (1801) explicitly as a Federalist outlet for opinionated attacks on rivals like . This partisan tradition, rooted in Enlightenment-era serials, prioritized ideological advocacy over objectivity, with printers often subsidizing operations through political patronage—a practice that persisted until mid-19th-century reforms sought greater separation of news and views.

Mid-20th Century Innovations

In the postwar era of the 1940s and 1950s, American newspapers saw a surge in syndicated opinion columns, which distributed the views of influential commentators to a national audience via emerging wire services and stereotype printing technologies. This innovation enabled figures like H.L. Mencken, whose acerbic critiques extended into the early 1940s, and successors such as Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson, whose "Washington Merry-Go-Round" column exposed political scandals starting in 1941, to reach millions beyond local readerships. Syndication grew from fewer than 100 columns in the 1920s to over 1,000 by the 1950s, fostering a marketplace of ideas amid Cold War ideological contests and reducing reliance on unsigned editorials. A pivotal conceptual shift occurred in the late 1950s when John B. Oakes, editorial-page editor of , proposed a dedicated page for outside contributions positioned opposite the traditional editorial page, aiming to incorporate diverse external perspectives amid concerns over journalistic uniformity. This idea responded to the era's media landscape, including the 1966 closure of , a conservative-leaning competitor whose opinion sections had provided counterpoints to ' prevailing liberal editorial stance, thereby underscoring risks of viewpoint monopolization in consolidating urban dailies. Oakes' vision emphasized signed, argumentative essays from non-staff writers—academics, politicians, and experts—to enrich debate, drawing on earlier precedents like Herbert Bayard Swope's 1921 commentary section at but adapting it for mid-century demands for broader intellectual engagement. These developments coincided with interpretive journalism's rise, where columnists like blended analysis with advocacy in his "Today and Tomorrow" feature (syndicated from 1931 to 1967), influencing public understanding of during events such as the (1950–1953) and the early Vietnam escalation. By the 1960s, newspapers increasingly featured such personal, bylined opinions to differentiate from television's fact-focused bulletins, with circulation peaks—U.S. daily readership exceeding 38 million by 1964—amplifying their reach. This period's innovations thus bridged unsigned institutional editorials and the personalized, external-voice model that would standardize post-1970, prioritizing argumentative rigor over mere commentary.

Expansion and Standardization Post-1970

launched its dedicated op-ed page on September 21, 1970, introducing a forum for outside contributors to present contrasting viewpoints to the editorial board's positions, with the aim of fostering broader intellectual debate on public issues. This format, named for its placement opposite the editorial page, marked a shift toward including guest essays from experts, policymakers, and citizens, often limited to around 750 words to encourage concise argumentation. Following the Times' innovation, major U.S. newspapers rapidly adopted similar op-ed sections, building on earlier precedents like the Washington Post's opinion features from the 1930s and the ' in the 1950s. By the mid-1970s, outlets such as and incorporated dedicated spaces for external opinions, expanding from sporadic columns to regular daily or weekly pages that prioritized bylined, evidence-based arguments over anonymous editorials. This proliferation reflected newspapers' response to growing demand for diverse perspectives amid events like the and Watergate, with syndication services like beginning to distribute op-eds nationally by the late 1970s. Standardization emerged through consistent editorial practices: pieces typically ranged from 600 to 800 words, employed a persuasive structure with a clear thesis, supporting facts, and a call to action, and were selected via rigorous fact-checking and balance considerations to represent multiple sides of debates. Newspapers established guidelines favoring contributors with expertise or firsthand experience, reducing reliance on staff-only views; for instance, the Times aimed for ideological diversity, publishing conservatives like William F. Buckley Jr. alongside liberals. By the 1980s, this model had permeated over 1,000 U.S. dailies, with op-ed volume increasing as print circulation peaked, enabling syndication to smaller papers and fostering a professional ecosystem of freelance opinion writers. Internationally, the format expanded in the and , with papers like of London and adopting analogous sections, often translating U.S.-style guest essays to engage global audiences on issues such as dynamics. Empirical studies confirm this growth's reach, noting that by the early 2000s, major dailies published two to three op-eds daily, standardizing the genre as a vehicle for influencing and public sentiment through targeted rather than reporting. This era's standardization prioritized verifiability and originality, with editors rejecting unsubstantiated claims, though critiques later arose over selective sourcing amid institutional biases in media selection processes.

Format and Characteristics

Typical Structure and Length

Op-eds generally adhere to a concise format to fit print and digital constraints, with most major newspapers limiting submissions to 600-800 words. The New York Times suggests around 650 words, though longer pieces up to 1,200 may be considered if compelling. The Washington Post caps submissions at 800 words, emphasizing brevity to maintain reader engagement. This range allows for depth without overwhelming space, as editors often trim drafts for clarity and impact. Structurally, op-eds begin with a lede—a compelling hook tying into current events or a provocative question to draw readers in, followed immediately by the articulating the main argument. The body develops 2-3 key points, each supported by evidence such as data, anecdotes, or expert references, while maintaining a logical progression. A dedicated paragraph often addresses counterarguments ("to be sure" section), acknowledging opposing views before refuting them to bolster credibility. The piece concludes with a forceful summary or , reinforcing the thesis without introducing new material. This inverted pyramid-like flow prioritizes the core opinion upfront, mirroring journalistic efficiency. Variations exist by outlet; digital platforms may tolerate slightly longer formats for multimedia integration, but print traditions enforce stricter limits to fit page layouts. Writers must ensure exclusivity and originality, as simultaneous submissions are rejected. Overall, the format demands precision: a single, focused point advanced persuasively within word constraints.

Rhetorical Strategies and Persuasive Elements

Op-ed writers commonly employ Aristotle's classical —, , and —to construct compelling arguments that influence readers' views on policy, culture, or current events. establishes the author's credibility through demonstrated expertise, professional background, or ethical stance, such as citing personal experience in the field or affiliations with respected institutions, thereby fostering trust before advancing claims. relies on supported by , including statistics, historical precedents, or causal analyses, to demonstrate the validity of the position; for instance, op-eds critiquing economic policies might reference specific GDP figures or regression studies to argue against interventionist measures. Pathos appeals to readers' emotions via anecdotes, vivid , or moral framing to evoke or urgency, often humanizing abstract issues—such as portraying individual hardships from regulatory failures to underscore broader systemic critiques. These elements interweave to rebut opposing views, with writers anticipating counterarguments and dismantling them through targeted evidence or analogies, enhancing persuasiveness without conceding ground. Rhetorical questions and imperatives further engage readers directly, prompting reflection or action, as seen in calls for phrased to imply inevitability. Framing devices, such as selective emphasis on causal chains or value-laden terms, shape interpretation by prioritizing certain facts over others, though this risks oversimplification if is cherry-picked; rigorous op-eds mitigate this by cross-referencing from multiple verifiable outlets. Quantitative analyses of editorials reveal preferences for logos-dominant strategies in policy-focused pieces, with more prevalent in social issues, reflecting audience expectations for reasoned over mere assertion. Ultimately, these techniques aim not just to inform but to mobilize, as measured by subsequent letters to editors or policy shifts attributable to influential columns.

Role Across Media Platforms

Dominance in Newspapers

Op-ed pages emerged as a standard feature in major U.S. newspapers following their introduction by The New York Times on September 22, 1970, when the term "op-ed" was coined to denote content positioned opposite the editorial page. This innovation allowed newspapers to incorporate external viewpoints alongside in-house editorials, fostering a broader spectrum of opinions and distinguishing print media's opinion sections from purely partisan commentary prevalent in earlier eras. By the 1990s, editorial and op-ed pages were read by over 60% of newspaper audiences, underscoring their central role in engaging readers with persuasive analysis on public policy and current events. The dominance of op-eds in newspapers stemmed from print's capacity to deliver in-depth, vetted arguments to a mass audience, with daily circulation peaking at over 62 million copies in the U.S. during the late 1980s before gradual declines. Major dailies like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal routinely featured op-eds from experts, politicians, and commentators, amplifying their influence on elite and public discourse; for instance, The Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger launched the page partly to sustain readership amid price increases. Empirical studies indicate these pieces exerted persistent effects on public opinion, with readers adjusting misperceptions based on factual arguments presented, though impacts varied by topic and source credibility. In contrast to news reporting, op-ed sections prioritized argumentative rigor over neutrality, enabling newspapers to host debates on niche or contentious issues without committing institutional resources to original editorials. This format's prevalence persisted into the early , even as overall fell to 20.9 million combined weekday and copies by , with content retaining value for subscriber retention in legacy outlets. However, some chains like Gannett began scaling back op-eds in , citing reader alienation from perceived partisanship, signaling challenges to their unchallenged status within print ecosystems. Despite such shifts, op-eds remained a hallmark of influence, often outpacing digital adaptations in depth and perceived authority prior to widespread fragmentation.

Adaptations in Digital and Broadcast Media

In , traditional op-ed formats have incorporated and interactive elements to suit online consumption, such as hyperlinks for sourcing claims and embedded videos for visual argumentation. , for example, maintains an Opinion Video section featuring argued video shorts and video guest essays—formerly termed video Op-Eds—that allow external contributors to present persuasive content in documentary or explanatory styles, a development expanding since the early . These adaptations address shorter attention spans and enable broader dissemination via social sharing, contrasting with static print versions limited to 500-800 words. Independent platforms like , launched in 2017, further democratize op-ed-style writing by enabling journalists and commentators to publish serialized opinion newsletters directly to subscribers, retaining ownership of audiences and revenue through paid models that bypass editorial gatekeepers. By 2022, Substack hosted thousands of such outlets, fostering niche discourse but also amplifying unvetted viewpoints amid reduced institutional oversight. In broadcast media, op-eds adapt into spoken and visual equivalents, primarily through editorial commentaries, host monologues, and panel discussions that prioritize persuasive analysis over straight reporting. Cable television networks exemplify this shift, with opinion content dominating airtime; a 2013 Pew Research Center analysis of programs from 2007-2012 found MSNBC allocating 85% of its content to commentary versus 15% to factual reporting, while Fox News devoted 55% to opinion. Such formats, often featuring ideologically aligned pundits, leverage emotional appeals and real-time visuals to mimic op-ed rhetoric, though they risk conflating opinion with news, as evidenced by viewer confusion over boundaries in polarized programming. Radio adaptations center on talk formats, where hosts deliver extended opinion segments; conservative talk radio surged after the 1987 repeal of the FCC's Fairness Doctrine—which had mandated balanced viewpoints since 1949—allowing syndicated shows to amass audiences through unfiltered monologues and call-in interactions, influencing public opinion on issues like policy debates. This evolution prioritizes host charisma and listener engagement over print's deliberate structure, but empirical studies indicate it polarizes audiences by reinforcing preexisting biases rather than fostering cross-ideological dialogue.

Cultural and Intellectual Impact

Shaping Public Discourse

Op-eds shape discourse by offering structured arguments from experts, policymakers, and s that frame key issues and challenge dominant narratives. These pieces facilitate agenda-setting, drawing attention to underrepresented topics and providing evidence-based rationales that can alter perceptions of causal relationships in matters. Empirical studies confirm their persuasive power: a 2018 randomized experiment exposed participants to op-eds on issues like and , finding statistically significant shifts in attitudes toward targeted policies, with average treatment effects of 0.08 standard deviations in support levels, persisting up to a month later. The effects were evident among both mass publics and elites, though slightly stronger for the former, indicating op-eds' capacity to disseminate ideas across diverse audiences. Beyond persuasion, op-eds influence discourse through historical precedents of policy impact. Academics and thought leaders have leveraged them to advocate for reforms, such as by presenting data-driven critiques of prevailing interventions, thereby prompting legislative reconsiderations. A notable case is Milton Friedman's September 13, 1970, New York Times op-ed, "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits," which argued against corporate social activism in favor of under free markets, reshaping executive priorities and contributing to the deregulation trends of the 1980s. Similarly, op-eds during the 2010s on topics like healthcare reform and have amplified debates, correlating with shifts in voter priorities as tracked in longitudinal surveys. The mechanism's efficacy, however, is constrained by gatekeeping, which often reflects supply-driven ideological biases where outlets select content aligning with ownership or journalistic leanings, potentially marginalizing analyses. Mainstream publications exhibit patterns of favoring progressive framings on social issues, as evidenced by content analyses of major , limiting discourse breadth and fostering audience polarization rather than cross-ideological engagement. Despite these limitations, op-eds remain a vital conduit for in public debate, countering oversimplified media narratives when sourced from credible independents.

Notable Op-eds and Their Influence

"Broken Windows," an article by and George L. Kelling published in The Atlantic in March 1982, posited that visible signs of disorder, such as unrepaired broken windows, signal community neglect and invite more serious criminal activity. The piece advocated for of minor infractions to prevent escalation to major crimes, drawing on empirical observations from urban environments like Newark and . This framework profoundly influenced public policy, particularly in under Mayor and Police Commissioner starting in 1994, where "broken windows" policing emphasized quality-of-life enforcement, contributing to a 56% drop in murders from 1990 to 1999. The strategy's adoption spread to other U.S. cities, correlating with national crime declines in the , though subsequent analyses have debated its causal role amid confounding factors like demographic shifts and . Critics, including some criminologists, argue that the theory overstated the link between disorder and crime, with mixed empirical support from randomized studies. In foreign policy, Russian President Vladimir Putin's op-ed "A Plea for Caution From Russia," published in The New York Times on September 11, 2013, urged the United States to avoid military strikes on Syria over chemical weapons use, instead supporting a UN resolution and inspections. Appearing amid escalating tensions, the piece reached millions, shifting U.S. public opinion—polls showed opposition to intervention rising from 36% to 50% post-publication—and prompting President Barack Obama to pivot toward diplomacy, securing Syria's chemical arsenal handover without airstrikes. This outcome averted immediate escalation but highlighted op-eds' potential to amplify foreign leaders' voices in domestic debates, though some U.S. officials viewed it as propaganda influencing congressional reluctance. Another landmark example is "The Case for Reparations" by in The Atlantic (June 2014), which argued for acknowledging slavery's enduring economic legacy through policy redress, reigniting national discourse on racial wealth gaps with data showing median white household wealth at $141,000 versus $11,000 for Black households in 2011. The essay influenced progressive platforms, including its role in shaping 2020 Democratic primary discussions, though it faced counterarguments emphasizing individual agency over and skepticism of feasibility given fiscal constraints. Its impact underscores op-eds' power to frame systemic issues, even as empirical critiques question the direct of past injustices on contemporary disparities absent intervening policies.

Criticisms and Challenges

Ideological Biases and Viewpoint Suppression

Op-ed sections in major U.S. newspapers have faced accusations of systemic ideological bias toward left-leaning perspectives, often manifesting as underrepresentation of conservative arguments and internal resistance to publishing dissenting views. Content analyses of outlets like and reveal patterns of source selection that prioritize establishment and progressive viewpoints, with limited inclusion of conservative or contrarian opinions even during periods of balanced editorial intent. This imbalance stems from demographics, where journalists self-identify overwhelmingly as Democrats or independents leaning left, fostering environments where conservative submissions encounter heightened scrutiny or rejection. A prominent example of viewpoint suppression occurred in June 2020, when published an op-ed by Republican Senator arguing for federal troop deployment to restore order amid urban riots following George Floyd's death. The piece triggered intense backlash from Times staff and external activists, who deemed it inflammatory and insufficiently vetted, prompting the paper to issue a public note of regret and review its publication standards. Opinion editor James Bennet resigned shortly thereafter, citing the controversy as emblematic of a broader shift away from publishing politically challenging pieces. Cotton later described how the incident chilled willingness among colleagues to edit or associate with conservative op-eds, with mid-career staff fearing professional repercussions for engaging "heretical" content. Such episodes illustrate causal mechanisms of suppression, including staff revolts and editorial gatekeeping that prioritize ideological over viewpoint diversity. Critics, including insiders, argue this reflects a post-2016 trend where op-ed pages deviated from prior efforts to balance liberal and conservative arguments, exacerbating public perceptions of . Empirical mistrust surveys corroborate this, with only 16% of Americans expressing high confidence in newspapers by 2023, largely attributing erosion to perceived partisan slant in content. While some conservative columnists appear in these sections, isolated publications of non-progressive views often provoke disproportionate outrage, reinforcing among editors and contributors.

Ethical Concerns Including Conflicts of Interest

Journalistic codes emphasize transparency in op-eds to address conflicts of interest, requiring authors and editors to disclose financial, personal, or ideological ties that could influence opinions. The (SPJ) Code of Ethics mandates avoiding real or perceived conflicts and disclosing unavoidable ones, enabling readers to assess potential biases in subjective pieces. Similarly, Ethical Journalism Handbook instructs contributors to guard against situations compromising independence, including prompt disclosure of relevant affiliations or funding. These standards stem from the recognition that undisclosed interests erode , as op-eds blend with journalistic platforms, potentially amplifying unexamined agendas. Undisclosed conflicts often involve authors affiliated with funded organizations or governments whose positions align with the op-ed's arguments. A documented over 20 Washington Post op-eds where contributors, including fellows, failed to reveal ties to or corporations like that stood to gain from pro-fossil fuel or stances. Such omissions, while not always intentional, allow vested interests to influence discourse without scrutiny, as evidenced by cases where op-ed writers received payments or grants from entities critiqued elsewhere in reporting. In academic-adjacent op-eds, parallels exist with scientific publishing scandals, where undisclosed industry skewed recommendations, underscoring causal links between non-disclosure and distorted public perception. Critics highlight inconsistent enforcement, particularly in outlets with ideological tilts, where left-leaning may overlook conflicts among progressive contributors while scrutinizing conservative ones, reflecting broader institutional biases. For example, SPJ guidelines apply unevenly in practice, with editorial boards sometimes prioritizing narrative fit over rigorous vetting, as seen in debates over op-eds from politically active figures without stated party affiliations. This selective transparency fosters cynicism, as empirical reviews of compliance show higher retraction or correction rates for undisclosed ties in opinion-influenced content compared to neutral reporting. To counter these risks, best practices include mandatory bio disclosures at publication and editorial recusal from pieces involving personal stakes, as outlined in Radio Television Digital News Association codes. Publications adhering strictly, such as those requiring pre-submission conflict forms, mitigate harm by empowering informed readership, though voluntary compliance remains prevalent, perpetuating vulnerabilities in an era of sponsored disguised as independent .

Decline Amid Social Media Fragmentation

The proliferation of platforms has fragmented audiences into niche echo chambers, reducing the centralized role of op-eds in shaping broad . Traditional op-eds, which historically provided edited, in-depth arguments to diverse readerships, compete with algorithm-driven short-form content that prioritizes virality over substantive analysis. This shift has diminished op-ed influence, as users increasingly consume personalized feeds that reinforce existing views rather than exposing them to counterarguments. Newspaper circulation and employment declines underscore the contraction of op-ed publication venues. U.S. daily circulation fell 8% year-over-year in to 20.9 million, and 32% over five years, correlating with reduced advertising revenue migrating to digital platforms. newsroom employment dropped 39% from its 2006 peak through recent years, limiting space for pieces amid cost-cutting. Total U.S. circulation declined 40% from 122 million to 73 million between peak periods and recent counts, exacerbating the loss of outlets for op-eds. Social media's direct dissemination of opinions bypasses journalistic gatekeeping, flooding with unvetted fragments that dilute the perceived of professional op-eds. Platforms enable rapid sharing of populist or partisan takes, often unburdened by , which has eroded trust in established media—including opinion sections—now at a low of 28% for newspapers. While major papers continue publishing two to three op-eds daily, their reach pales against social media's scale, where fragmented engagement favors over reasoned . This dynamic has prompted adaptations, such as syndicating op-eds online, yet the core format struggles against attention economies designed for brevity.

References

  1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/op-ed
  2. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/op%2520ed
  3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/op-ed-writing-guide-washington-post-examples/
  4. https://www.etymonline.com/word/op-ed
  5. https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/2018/09/13/oped-editorial-opinion-section-journalism-terms-defined-des-moines-register/1224898002/
  6. https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/qdtarchive/what-does-op-ed-mean/
  7. https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/hks-communications-program/files/new_seglin_how_to_write_an_oped_1_25_17_7.pdf
  8. https://www.[merriam-webster](/page/Merriam-Webster).com/dictionary/op-ed
  9. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/op-ed_adj
  10. https://www.sedaliademocrat.com/stories/the-newspaper-column-and-its-origins%2C33157
  11. https://research.colonialwilliamsburg.org/Foundation/journal/spring03/journalism.cfm
  12. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Communication/Journalism_and_Mass_Communication/The_American_Journalism_Handbook_-_Concepts_Issues_and_Skills_%28Zamith%29/08%253A_Preparing_a_News_Story/8.02%253A_Opinion-Based_Journalism
  13. https://digitalresource.center/content/short-history-opinion-journalism
  14. https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Spectator-British-periodical-1711-1712
  15. https://fiveable.me/history-and-principles-of-journalism/unit-2/birth-newspapers-periodicals/study-guide/TubbumMpKJmhqGEa
  16. https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text
  17. https://dailycollegian.com/2015/03/why-opinion-journalism-matters/
  18. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-syndicated-columns-comics-stories-forever-changed-news-media-180973431/
  19. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/09/a-press-scholar-explains-how-the-new-york-times-op-ed-page-got-started.html
  20. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/03/insider/opinion-op-ed-explainer.html
  21. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=cmj_facpub
  22. https://www.sfpublicpress.org/a-1950s-60s-golden-age-for-newspapers/
  23. https://academic.oup.com/book/8479/chapter/154298936
  24. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/26/opinion/nyt-opinion-oped-redesign.html
  25. https://isps.yale.edu/sites/default/files/publication/2018/04/qjps_2018_coppock_op-eds_100.00016112.pdf
  26. https://birnbachcom.com/what-we-think/the-changing-face-of-op-ed-sections/
  27. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/info/help/opedsubmit.html
  28. https://www.theopedproject.org/submissions
  29. https://helpcenter.washingtonpost.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003675788-Submit-an-op-ed
  30. https://www.theopedproject.org/resources
  31. https://pinkston.co/how-to-write-an-op-ed/
  32. https://communicators.duke.edu/writing-media/writing-effective-op-eds/
  33. https://prcg.com/blog/thats-your-opinion-tips-writing-op-eds/
  34. https://rivercity.wusd.k12.ca.us/subsites/Brandon-Duff/documents/Expository-Reading-and-Writing-Course/Modules/Rhetoric-of-the-Op-Ed/ERWC-Rhetoric%2520of%2520the%2520Op%2520Ed%2520Student%2520Version.pdf
  35. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/establishing_arguments/rhetorical_strategies.html
  36. https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijsell/v3-i2/15.pdf
  37. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311983.2022.2146636
  38. https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Op-Eds-SLS-Workshop.pdf
  39. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260230260_Rhetorical_Aspects_in_Newspaper_Editorials
  40. https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-journalism-2e/chpt/oped-page
  41. https://www.wnyc.org/story/the-state-of-opeds/
  42. https://oxfordre.com/communication/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-803
  43. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/newspapers/
  44. https://freedom.press/issues/a-guide-to-press-freedom-op-eds/
  45. https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/06/09/gannett-opinion-pages/
  46. https://www.nytimes.com/spotlight/opinion-video
  47. https://cjr.org/tow_center_reports/digital-platforms-and-journalistic-careers-a-case-study-of-substack-newsletters.php
  48. https://substack.com/about
  49. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2013/03/17/the-changing-tv-news-landscape/
  50. https://americanpressinstitute.org/confusion-about-whats-news-and-whats-opinion-is-a-big-problem-but-journalists-can-help-solve-it/
  51. https://www.tpr.org/show/the-source/2020-03-01/how-conservative-talk-radio-transformed-american-politics
  52. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20160812
  53. https://isps.yale.edu/research/publications/isps18-09
  54. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229599547_Influencing_Public_Policy_An_Analysis_of_Published_Op-Eds_by_Academics
  55. https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/19/opinions/100-op-eds-that-tell-the-story-of-the-decade
  56. https://theconversation.com/is-news-bias-fueled-by-journalists-supplying-slanted-views-or-readers-demanding-them-an-economist-weighs-in-236769
  57. https://www.athensjournals.gr/media/2019-5-3-2-Elyamany.pdf
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3786663/
  59. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-windows/304465/
  60. https://www.vitalcitynyc.org/articles/policings-hidden-curriculum
  61. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/637/
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8059646/
  63. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240533098_Source_and_Content_Diversity_in_Op-Ed_Pages_Assessing_Editorial_Strategies_in_The_New_York_Times_and_The_Washington_Post
  64. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2020/01/24/u-s-media-polarization-and-the-2020-election-a-nation-divided/
  65. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/business/new-york-times-op-ed-cotton.html
  66. https://www.npr.org/2020/06/07/871751084/nyt-editorial-page-editor-resigns-after-op-ed-backlash
  67. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/tom-cotton-new-york-times/677546/
  68. https://www.economist.com/1843/2023/12/14/when-the-new-york-times-lost-its-way
  69. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/14/how-the-new-york-times-survived-the-1960s-316530
  70. https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/657239/five-key-insights-americans-views-news-media.aspx
  71. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/10/joe-biden-peter-schweizer-new-york-times-op-ed/
  72. https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journalism.html
  73. https://www.mediamatters.org/legacy/conflicts-interest-and-corporate-interests-lurking-behind-op-eds-2017
  74. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/case/undisclosed-conflict-interest
  75. https://www.cjr.org/analysis/conflict-of-interests-new-york-times.php
  76. https://www.producer.com/editorial-code-of-ethics/
  77. https://ethicsadvicelineforjournalists.org/2024/07/25/conflict-of-interest-revisited/
  78. https://www.rtdna.org/avoiding-conflict-of-interest
  79. https://mediaengagement.org/research/the-ethics-of-op-eds/
  80. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/echo-chambers-filter-bubbles-and-polarisation-literature-review
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7343248/
  82. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/11/2/40
  83. https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/fragmentation_media_indymedia.php
  84. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-decline-of-newspapers-in-four-charts/
  85. https://www.usnewsdeserts.com/reports/expanding-news-desert/loss-of-local-news/loss-newspapers-readers/
  86. https://news.gallup.com/poll/695762/trust-media-new-low.aspx
  87. https://pinkston.co/state-of-the-op-ed/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.