Writing for newspapers
Write only if you absolutely have to. I never compose an Opinion/OpEd piece unless my muse has descended unbidden, tapped me firmly on the noggin and instructed me: “Timothy, you simply must write something about X!” And then I usually find that the first draft just about writes itself – in the shower; on my walk to work. By the time I actually get to a keyboard I’ve often got the first two or three hundred words ready to go. If you don’t know where to start from the start, you probably shouldn’t.
Write to the word limit – about 700 words these days at the Herald. That should mean throwing out stuff from your draft – painful, but if you don’t do it, the editor will, unless they decide it’s just too much trouble and toss the whole piece into the bin. However, even when you do write to the recommended limit, something will always be edited out, along with minor syntax changes, and just about always for the better, in my experience. The editors know their job better than you do, and, anyway, no reader will notice (how could they?).
Don’t waste even thirty seconds of your precious time left on Earth by coming up with a brilliant title for your piece. It seems to be a matter of personal honour for sub-editors to re-title anything that comes over their desks (regular journalists have to suffer this as well). Indeed, if there is a title you definitely don’t want for your little masterpiece -- some obvious, sickly pun, for example – then do put it on top: it is sure to get the editor’s red ink treatment. I once sent to the Herald an OpEd on income inequality which, among other points, criticised as excessive the salary of my nominal boss, the Vice Chancellor (I believe that no-one in the public sector should be paid more than, say, the Prime Minister). The sub editor picked up from my text the phrase “warriors of privilege”, added the epithet “greedy” and ran it in the title. The VC took some offense at this heading and its possible association with himself. I told him that I hadn’t chosen it, and wouldn’t have chosen those particular words as a heading, but I perhaps should have made sure of the matter by putting it up myself, or even by excising the phrase from my text as over-wrought language, as indeed in hindsight it now seems to me to be.
Flowery or melodramatic words should always be kicked out, along with related offences against good plain English, such as (my particular bête-noire) cheap-thrills metaphors. These can turn up in even very nice places – here’s one that recently stuck in my craw, from the best English-language magazine in the world, The New Yorker: “[Henry David] Thoreau lays out a program of abstinence so thoroughgoing as to make the Dalai Lama look like a Kardashian.” Oh, really?
So make sure you write really, really well, ok? Even so, you will get rejected, probably more often than not. I have been doing this for a long time, and my muse is usually kind in giving me a good topic to write about, but I would guess (I don’t keep a tally) that my success rate is no better than two acceptances from every three submissions.
Seeking to find out more about what Opinion Page editors like and dislike, I contacted John Roughan – editorial writer and columnist at the Herald. I often – perhaps even mostly – don’t share John’s point of view, but he is an excellent writer and (I believe) a fair and good-hearted person. I first met him in – we think – 1996, when he popped his head around the door of my office in the Economics Dept. He was actually soliciting submissions for the new Opinion Page that the then editor, Gavin Ellis, was setting up. To make things really interesting, the Herald would actually pay for contributions -- something around $500 [!], I recall. Them was the days…
Anyway, I emailed John Roughan, telling him what I was up to, and making some of the points I have made above. It turns out that he is now exceptionally busy, having taken over the Opinion Page editing from the retired Tim Murphy, on top of his own writing duties. But he very kindly responded to my request for some insights from the other side of the editorial desk. He agrees strongly with my proposition that actually having something to write about is key:
Write to the word limit – about 700 words these days at the Herald. That should mean throwing out stuff from your draft – painful, but if you don’t do it, the editor will, unless they decide it’s just too much trouble and toss the whole piece into the bin. However, even when you do write to the recommended limit, something will always be edited out, along with minor syntax changes, and just about always for the better, in my experience. The editors know their job better than you do, and, anyway, no reader will notice (how could they?).
Don’t waste even thirty seconds of your precious time left on Earth by coming up with a brilliant title for your piece. It seems to be a matter of personal honour for sub-editors to re-title anything that comes over their desks (regular journalists have to suffer this as well). Indeed, if there is a title you definitely don’t want for your little masterpiece -- some obvious, sickly pun, for example – then do put it on top: it is sure to get the editor’s red ink treatment. I once sent to the Herald an OpEd on income inequality which, among other points, criticised as excessive the salary of my nominal boss, the Vice Chancellor (I believe that no-one in the public sector should be paid more than, say, the Prime Minister). The sub editor picked up from my text the phrase “warriors of privilege”, added the epithet “greedy” and ran it in the title. The VC took some offense at this heading and its possible association with himself. I told him that I hadn’t chosen it, and wouldn’t have chosen those particular words as a heading, but I perhaps should have made sure of the matter by putting it up myself, or even by excising the phrase from my text as over-wrought language, as indeed in hindsight it now seems to me to be.
Flowery or melodramatic words should always be kicked out, along with related offences against good plain English, such as (my particular bête-noire) cheap-thrills metaphors. These can turn up in even very nice places – here’s one that recently stuck in my craw, from the best English-language magazine in the world, The New Yorker: “[Henry David] Thoreau lays out a program of abstinence so thoroughgoing as to make the Dalai Lama look like a Kardashian.” Oh, really?
So make sure you write really, really well, ok? Even so, you will get rejected, probably more often than not. I have been doing this for a long time, and my muse is usually kind in giving me a good topic to write about, but I would guess (I don’t keep a tally) that my success rate is no better than two acceptances from every three submissions.
Seeking to find out more about what Opinion Page editors like and dislike, I contacted John Roughan – editorial writer and columnist at the Herald. I often – perhaps even mostly – don’t share John’s point of view, but he is an excellent writer and (I believe) a fair and good-hearted person. I first met him in – we think – 1996, when he popped his head around the door of my office in the Economics Dept. He was actually soliciting submissions for the new Opinion Page that the then editor, Gavin Ellis, was setting up. To make things really interesting, the Herald would actually pay for contributions -- something around $500 [!], I recall. Them was the days…
Anyway, I emailed John Roughan, telling him what I was up to, and making some of the points I have made above. It turns out that he is now exceptionally busy, having taken over the Opinion Page editing from the retired Tim Murphy, on top of his own writing duties. But he very kindly responded to my request for some insights from the other side of the editorial desk. He agrees strongly with my proposition that actually having something to write about is key:
|
You should stress to others that having something to say is all that really matters. Editors can always sharpen up the writing - a few full stops can make all the difference. I guess academics are nervous at the thought of being edited but they shouldn't be. The feedback I get usually suggests they have not noticed the trimming and sharpening I have done.
Jargon is the big thing to avoid. You may not realise how much academic jargon we get... Please stress in your piece that newspaper editors are not impressed with windy words and phrases that are either superfluous or have better equivalents in everyday language. People who really have something to say do not use pseudo-intellectual phrases. One other piece of advice you might give is to get to the point quickly. A lot of OpEd contributions start with introductory flam, often equivocating on the point before they have made it. Get to the point - and keep on the point. Don't pad it out for a required length. Word counts are just a guide. Newspapers will use a shorter contribution if it is interesting enough. Interesting material is all you need. Whether it is a piece of research or just an original thought, if it is interesting the writer will express it simply and clearly, which is all we ask. |
Well, dear colleagues – there you have it, and from a literally (as well as literary) authoritative source. Good luck!
|
Tim Hazledine is a professor in the economics department of the University of Auckland Business School.
|