#12 Kill the Cliches. Oh! Yes!
15
I'll reach out to you should I have any questions.
24
An amendment to point 2), or a corollary to point 12). If you can introduce a new cliche into the language, even one with unorthodox verbiage, like "nattering nabobs of negativism," you will have done the world a service. With best regards to that NYT op-ed hall-of-famer and wordsmith, Bill Safire.
25
Maybe one very evident, but important, piece of advice was left out: Don´t lie!
Or, even worse, plagiarize. Willfully or not. The most valued thing journalists, or anybody who publishes for that matter, have is their credibility. If you loose it, you will not recover it. Case in point: Fareed Zakaria's ethic violations. He is a brilliant mind but, since his scandals, his op eds just do not carry the same weight anymore, at least for me.
Or, even worse, plagiarize. Willfully or not. The most valued thing journalists, or anybody who publishes for that matter, have is their credibility. If you loose it, you will not recover it. Case in point: Fareed Zakaria's ethic violations. He is a brilliant mind but, since his scandals, his op eds just do not carry the same weight anymore, at least for me.
21
Some of the the tips given in this piece can also pertain to writing comments. I will save this article and check it out from time to time when making comments in this section so I can make my points more clearly.
34
Mr. Stephens should make sure to re-read #9 before writing another opinion piece on climate change. "Sweat the small stuff. Read over each sentence — read it aloud — and ask yourself: Is this true?" So far he's failed to take his own advice on this point.
45
I disagree with the one-hand writer bit. In the world of extremism, a two-sided presentation can be a unique perspective. But one should do so without falling prey to cliche or mediocrity. For example, the Dalai Lama always stresses the Middle Way, granted that it is a technical concept. This is very different from Trump's both side lameness
18
Excellent piece, which I'll save.
Thanks, Mr. Stephens.
(I do have one observation, as someone who once was an editorial page copy editor for a midsized Midwestern daily. Readers need to distinguish between articles and columns, and not get so agitated when they find opinions in the "articles" they read. It's always amazed me at the number of people who get the two confused.)
Thanks, Mr. Stephens.
(I do have one observation, as someone who once was an editorial page copy editor for a midsized Midwestern daily. Readers need to distinguish between articles and columns, and not get so agitated when they find opinions in the "articles" they read. It's always amazed me at the number of people who get the two confused.)
14
I've published 8 Op-eds in the NY Times since 2009 - 7 of them in the last three years.
I looked at this article hoping I had followed all the suggestions. I had.
But there are other factors, some of them quite drastic or shall we say "Off the wall" that have helped me.
Perhaps some day I will share them.
Not today, though!
Good luck, everybody!
Josh Max
I looked at this article hoping I had followed all the suggestions. I had.
But there are other factors, some of them quite drastic or shall we say "Off the wall" that have helped me.
Perhaps some day I will share them.
Not today, though!
Good luck, everybody!
Josh Max
25
Well, it helps to have talent. You do. Your piece, "To a Friend, on His Divorce." is a brilliant piece of writing.
15
Thank you, NA. You just made my Saturday, I'm not kidding.
9
Good stuff except for dissing Velveeta.
21
With everything happening in the US today and this is all you could manage to write about. NY Times deserves better.
8
Good one. But consider: Given what IS happening in the US, many will feel compelled to write an op-ed and send it to their local paper. THIS info will, one hopes, help them get it on the page and the paper's site.
14
It serves the cause of promoting cogent writing that's worth reading.
32
Thank you Mr. Stephens.
4
16) Write a critical and nasty op ed about President Trump and you are guaranteed to be published in the New York Times. The meaner the better and more responses from your leftist readers will surely occur. It happens all the time.
17
This is all good advice for any kind of writing. But I am not sure why the Times and Mr. Stephens felt this should be published here. I look to Mr. Stephens for thoughtful expressions of the conservative viewpoint, and I look to the Times for a fair spectrum of the political opinions of the day. For the Elements of Style, I can always go to Strunk and White.
9
Change o' pace? Because if you make donuts every day, sometimes you want to make a muffin? Consider that with what's happening in the US today, if you are a conservative or progressive or independent, you may well now have something to say. He's taking the time to offer some instruction on how to get that op-ed you think you want to write onto the paper's page or website. Yes?
9
This advice transfers well to engineering. The weird thing is engineers spend a big chunk of their time writing. For most of us it's badly. There are some engineers who can write, but they're like the Michael Jordan (basketball player) of engineering. The best writing teacher an engineer can have is a lawyer. Hopefully not an army of lawyers going through design plans and specifications with a fine toothed comb after the act. Council for potentially actionable document review is always helpful. And hurtful to most of us engineers who think we can write. But that's a good kind of hurt and less expensive.
Someday in future ideas will magically become acts without any documentation. Maybe even artificially intelligent robots will do the ideas, too. Until then, engineers like aspiring op-ed writers need to learn to write right.
Someday in future ideas will magically become acts without any documentation. Maybe even artificially intelligent robots will do the ideas, too. Until then, engineers like aspiring op-ed writers need to learn to write right.
14
WOW! What a strange article. Not one morsel of red meat for the choir. Not a whiff of trumpitis. Not an end-of-days scenario. Not NYT Op-Ed stuff.
Did Bret tick off some V.I.P. at the Times? Is his editor envious of his Pulitzer? Are three "conservative" too many by two for The Editors? Is James Bennett, who hailed his hiring, about to pull a Trump/Comey/Bannon/etc?
Will Mr. Stephens be writing for the WSJ before the leaves fall in Central Park?
Did Bret tick off some V.I.P. at the Times? Is his editor envious of his Pulitzer? Are three "conservative" too many by two for The Editors? Is James Bennett, who hailed his hiring, about to pull a Trump/Comey/Bannon/etc?
Will Mr. Stephens be writing for the WSJ before the leaves fall in Central Park?
8
Nicely done!
3
I didn't want to like or admire Mr. Stephens initially, based on his politics. But I have come to admire his writings greatly. I will file his advice away for another day when composing my next comment.
10
"If you find writing easy, you’re doing it wrong." Thanks Mr. Stephens. I just copied this quote onto a piece of paper and taped it next to the computer. As a novice, it is helpful to hear from a professional that one's struggle with the printed word, though at times discouraging, may be attributable to being on the right path.
12
Most important, good writing needs smart readers as a fire needs Oxygen, good readers who are at least willing to be surprised if not always completely convinced. Any reader who enters into a sentence with the thought that they are omnicompetent, is wasting his and your time. No one knows everything.
I believe I am well informed and intelligent but also, always willing to be amazed and have my eyes opened- and to throw over old preconceptions, to realize how wrong and often prejudiced I have been.
Smart readers are a good writers gift. But for this, we need good and smart teachers. Like the sort we so admired before the 60's.
I believe I am well informed and intelligent but also, always willing to be amazed and have my eyes opened- and to throw over old preconceptions, to realize how wrong and often prejudiced I have been.
Smart readers are a good writers gift. But for this, we need good and smart teachers. Like the sort we so admired before the 60's.
12
Despite enjoining readers to "kill the cliches", Mr Stephens engages in the use of the "Sanctimonious She".
The English language has always been bedeviled by the absence of a gender nonspecific singular pronoun; traditional usage accepted the use of "he" as the generic. But it has been pointed out that this supports an implication of male dominance. Conscientious writers, including this one, have attempted to deal with this issue by avoiding the use of a generic pronoun entirely, although this often challenges one's ingenuity.
A recent innovation has been the emerging use of "she" as the generic, as Mr Stephens has done in this article. It has appeared by stealth like the mysterious replacement of "sex", except as an activity, by "gender". (A witticism among survey analysts used to be the phrase "respondents broken down by sex and age"; not any more.)
But it is immediately arguable that the same objections apply to the use of "she" as to the use of "he". The likely response is along the lines that "males have had their way long enough and now it is time for women". That, of course, enlists the writer in a cause, and many do not wish to participate in that war.
So my solution is to continue to acknowledge the valid objection by avoiding the generic, without much hope that ultimately one wrong will not come to be replaced by another.
The English language has always been bedeviled by the absence of a gender nonspecific singular pronoun; traditional usage accepted the use of "he" as the generic. But it has been pointed out that this supports an implication of male dominance. Conscientious writers, including this one, have attempted to deal with this issue by avoiding the use of a generic pronoun entirely, although this often challenges one's ingenuity.
A recent innovation has been the emerging use of "she" as the generic, as Mr Stephens has done in this article. It has appeared by stealth like the mysterious replacement of "sex", except as an activity, by "gender". (A witticism among survey analysts used to be the phrase "respondents broken down by sex and age"; not any more.)
But it is immediately arguable that the same objections apply to the use of "she" as to the use of "he". The likely response is along the lines that "males have had their way long enough and now it is time for women". That, of course, enlists the writer in a cause, and many do not wish to participate in that war.
So my solution is to continue to acknowledge the valid objection by avoiding the generic, without much hope that ultimately one wrong will not come to be replaced by another.
10
As someone who's published, though not (yet) in the NYT, I attest to Mr. Stephens' comments. They are true, not "basic" at all, and, if you're doing it right, hard to follow. And worth following, every single one.
7
Thanks for the fawning praise.
1
Give praise where praise is due.
3
People who minimize the value of this piece have never written an op-ed piece. Or perhaps they have, and have experienced rejection, time, after time. I was a regular Sunday op-ed contributor to a daily newspaper in upstate NY about 20 years ago, and I agree with these suggestions. I also discovered, on a regular basis, that people stopped me in stores to either argue or agree with me about either the topic I had written about or the conclusions I had reached. And then--the letters to the editor that followed the columns I wrote, criticizing my opinions. So, if you want to be an op-ed writer, be prepared for that. And I did my op-ed writing BEFORE the electronic newspaper had comments (such as this one) online.
Op-ed writing isn't as easy as the NYT writers make it seem.
Op-ed writing isn't as easy as the NYT writers make it seem.
10
Very correct all around. And consider that the NYT writers are professionals at this. Most of us can only look on in awe.
This is too long. Haha.
13
Here's a tip for op-ed readers: consider the source.
If the writer is ideological, ego driven, or both, don't waste your time.
If the writer is ideological, ego driven, or both, don't waste your time.
12
Unless you agree with them, of course. Am I right?
13
Mr. Stephens,
I teach op-ed writing to every student in my economics classes at William & Mary. I tell them it's a useful job skill. Most of them will have to write persuasively for a living in some fashion, and in most of it they won't get to blubber on for twelve pages. I give them a set of guidelines that follows yours almost point for point. But you've condensed it for me, like a good op-ed!
I teach op-ed writing to every student in my economics classes at William & Mary. I tell them it's a useful job skill. Most of them will have to write persuasively for a living in some fashion, and in most of it they won't get to blubber on for twelve pages. I give them a set of guidelines that follows yours almost point for point. But you've condensed it for me, like a good op-ed!
53
As a once and future newspaper op-ed contributor, I find this set of recommendations bang-on. Very well done, and they follow precisely the advice that Stephens himself gives to be succinct and avoid pointless detours and hype. Congratulations for a small classic of op-ed writing.
5
I don't plan on becoming a Op-Ed writer, but I do plan to keep on thinking and having opinions. To me this article is going to help me not only write a little better, but think and process what I think I know.
5
Dear Mr. Stevens...how about this one from George Orwell.
Political writing in our time consists almost entirely of prefabricated phrases bolted together like the pieces of a child’s Meccano set. It is the unavoidable result of self-censorship. To write in plain, vigorous language one has to think fearlessly, and if one thinks fearlessly one cannot be politically orthodox.
Political writing in our time consists almost entirely of prefabricated phrases bolted together like the pieces of a child’s Meccano set. It is the unavoidable result of self-censorship. To write in plain, vigorous language one has to think fearlessly, and if one thinks fearlessly one cannot be politically orthodox.
14
Add: Humor, Use it and often.
Followed by: But first know how to write humorously. It takes way more practice then straight writing.
But if you have no real sense of humor, then avoid it altogether.
Followed by: But first know how to write humorously. It takes way more practice then straight writing.
But if you have no real sense of humor, then avoid it altogether.
8
"Let your speech be Yea, yea; Nay, nay." That's how Jesus of Nazareth put it.
Well said!
Well said!
4
*
It's Matthew 5:37. "Let your communication be yea yea, nay nay for whatsoever is more than this cometh of evil."
It's Matthew 5:37. "Let your communication be yea yea, nay nay for whatsoever is more than this cometh of evil."
3
NYT has published a lot of my letters over the years (1980 - 2016), so I'll take the liberty to add one more tip.
Make your first draft an honest projection of what you're really feeling without any reluctance about sounding extreme. Then, apply the necessary restraints in your revisions. A bit of your initial emotions may still show through.
Once you're done, you can delete that first draft.
Make your first draft an honest projection of what you're really feeling without any reluctance about sounding extreme. Then, apply the necessary restraints in your revisions. A bit of your initial emotions may still show through.
Once you're done, you can delete that first draft.
22
You had me with you until the end of your piece when you chose to refer generally to an editor as a "she." Poor choice. You could have just as easily referred to editors in the plural, avoided the gender matter entirely and you wouldn't have disrupted a piece of writing that had been on a roll.
7
This is great. I have absolutely no ambition to submit an op-ed here or anywhere but I love writing comments and think they would be vastly improved if I were to follow Bret Stephens's advice.
Alas, while I can offer opinions on a wide variety of subjects, they are not 'backed by rigorously marshaled evidence'. I read stuff. I file it inside my crowded mind where it becomes mine to use as I see fit.
Authority matters. That's a problem too. I have none. I have passion but no authority. OK, that's never going to change.
I'm getting good at that proleptic thing, although I have gained very little respect in the readership for it.
I would sweat the small stuff, but there's no time. Comment sections close abruptly leaving your perfectly composed gift to humanity highlighted in doomed gray instead of hopeful yellow. Darn! That was a great comment! Don't sweat the small stuff. Press submit. Now!
I'm not Proust but why should his propensity for verbosity be celebrated? I've read Proust and he's awesomely boring.
I'm frightened by the thought of the mental slop that lies beneath cllches, but where can I get that apostrophe above the e in cliches so I don't look like a dufus?
I find writing incredibly hard, but there must be something else I'm missing.
I love the advice. I will file it in my brain along with all that other stuff and share it freely.
Alas, while I can offer opinions on a wide variety of subjects, they are not 'backed by rigorously marshaled evidence'. I read stuff. I file it inside my crowded mind where it becomes mine to use as I see fit.
Authority matters. That's a problem too. I have none. I have passion but no authority. OK, that's never going to change.
I'm getting good at that proleptic thing, although I have gained very little respect in the readership for it.
I would sweat the small stuff, but there's no time. Comment sections close abruptly leaving your perfectly composed gift to humanity highlighted in doomed gray instead of hopeful yellow. Darn! That was a great comment! Don't sweat the small stuff. Press submit. Now!
I'm not Proust but why should his propensity for verbosity be celebrated? I've read Proust and he's awesomely boring.
I'm frightened by the thought of the mental slop that lies beneath cllches, but where can I get that apostrophe above the e in cliches so I don't look like a dufus?
I find writing incredibly hard, but there must be something else I'm missing.
I love the advice. I will file it in my brain along with all that other stuff and share it freely.
8
Great points that should also extend to those writing comments to the OpEd pieces -- especially the 80/20 rule.
5
Back to class everyone. We're going to celebrate the start of the weekend with a 10th grade level writing lesson from a pompous English professor who feels we all need immediate instruction. Unfortunately Professor Stephens leans heavily on witty put downs, a sure sign that the teacher is more interested in his own brilliance his students' success. Why is Bret Stephens here? What is his point? Is there going to be a test?
7
Why is it that I read the same article you did, and saw nothing of what you saw?
8
I don't need any "summertime service" from a Trump enabler. Credibility matters, and this faux intellectual doesn't have it.
7
Let's see: Phoenix rally, Arpaio pardon, directive against transgender soldiers signed ... Yep, nothing to talk about. So looking forward to the upcoming column on the proper use of 'whom' and 'that'.
10
Isn't this essentially lifted from Strunk & White?
3
How refreshing. In this era of citizen journalism, many think they write well, their opinions are as valid as those of an expert, and if they say it, it must be true. I'm saving this. It's shorter than struck and white.
3
Bret, thanks for an excellent editorial that can also be applied to writing a novel. I'm hopeful to publish my first book at the age of 88.
3
It would be more truthful to concede that op-ed writers don't need much in the way talent, insight or ability. What they do require is good connections, lots of luck and opinions acceptable to the owners.
Haven't we learned by now that American capitalism installs mediocrities at the top?
Haven't we learned by now that American capitalism installs mediocrities at the top?
15
I'm sorry you haven't read any good essays. I suggest you search for something that might affect your self-defeating cynicism. Or is not wanting to learn your only method of "fun?"
4
I read that book too. "Cream Rises To The Top Until It Sours". pub, Jan 21, 2017.
3
And encourages them to write for comment sections.
3
As I used to admonish my high-school writing students, "don't give me the kitchen sink and ask me to find a crumb."
5
A little short of ideas for a column this week? A style sheet for op-ed writers is pretty thin gruel. Surely you could come up with something a little more stimulating than a rehash of English 101.
15
As a technical writer who has to edit and edit again, this stuff can't be "rehashed" too often.
15
As a subordinate clause which begins your comment, "this stuff" isn't itself "a technical writer." :)
4
William, if you're a technical writer, you might want to find another job.
Go back and edit and edit (again). You missed it the first time.
Go back and edit and edit (again). You missed it the first time.
1
Please send this over to your colleague Mr. Blow and underline the part about brevity. Usually everything he writes can be summarized in his title and first paragraph. I've learned I can stop at that point and head directly to the comment section.
On the other hand (economist lingo) Mr. Edsall peppers his pieces with actual evidence, and his longer pieces are worth reading to the end.
And finally for Mr. Brooks, an erstwhile favorite of mine whose excursions into social theory have become wearisome, tell him to get back to real journalism.
On the other hand (economist lingo) Mr. Edsall peppers his pieces with actual evidence, and his longer pieces are worth reading to the end.
And finally for Mr. Brooks, an erstwhile favorite of mine whose excursions into social theory have become wearisome, tell him to get back to real journalism.
17
Your comments reflect your interests in reading. Mr. Blow follows Mr. Stephens' advice exactly, as does Mr. Edsall, though each has a difference emphasis in developing their commentaries. Mr. Brooks explores ideas more expansively - a "generalist" who analyzes and comments. They're often more thought provoking than argumentative. Each has its place.
5
Today I want to write about writing reader's comments. Particularly for the columns of the greatest Op-Ed NYT writer, Brit Stevens. I just happen to think that writing comments is good. Although I frequently avoid doing it and discourage others to do it. Apparently it has been said that information has to be presented. It's understandable but debatable. Reading other readers comments leaves me apoplectic. They shouldn't be writing them especially when the right writing toolkit is not used. I think this will advance the discussion of not having a discussion. I hope the comment editors, who don't really know what they are doing sometimes, will improve this comment before posting it under "NYT Picks".
8
Dear; "Dare to be wise." (how ironic) Its funny you criticize other comment writers yet get BRET STEPHENS name wrong. Not a simple typo, but a complete misspelling. Where's that toolkit...in the trunk of your car?
Oh...one is left in a state of apoplexy, not a state of apoplectic.
And that first sentence is straight out of a grade school essay. "Today I want to write about..." And you just "happen to think"...? That thought just happened to pop into your head? You never had it before now?
There is nothing worse then a poster telling other posters not to post, because they somehow get it wrong...then get it wrong themselves.
But that is typically the case. One should follow ones own advice when telling others not to do something.
Oh...one is left in a state of apoplexy, not a state of apoplectic.
And that first sentence is straight out of a grade school essay. "Today I want to write about..." And you just "happen to think"...? That thought just happened to pop into your head? You never had it before now?
There is nothing worse then a poster telling other posters not to post, because they somehow get it wrong...then get it wrong themselves.
But that is typically the case. One should follow ones own advice when telling others not to do something.
1
Checking spelling is really important, especially when citing an author. It's Bret Stephens you're praising here, not Brit Stevens.
5
I believe that this is parody. The writer violates every one of Stephens' guidelines.
3
I enjoyed this as a collection of basic suggestions for wouldbe writers unaccustomed to publication. Consider and apply as you see fit. Okay. Surprised to see such a collection of vitriol in the comments. Maybe someone should write a suggestion list for effective comment writing? For starters, i suggest that mmediately bringing one's least favorite politician into an article that had nothing whatever to do with him/her is not really effective. Write and submit your own excellent article instead?
5
Thanks for this. It is relevant to all sorts of writing and thinking. A few suggestions...
16) Don't forget humility. The people you write about probably know a great deal more about the issues or particular aspects and have already considered your opinion. And many people will have insightful viewpoints, not just pundits who are generally wrong (see Nate Silver). A case in point is blue collar voters overlooked in the recent election. Without complete information you might be wrong and being wrong has consequences.
17) Try to say something useful and memorable. Say something your reader will take away and recall when talking with others. Say it at the beginning, the end, substantiate it, whatever is necessary so there is a take away that is actually taken away. Otherwise it is just writing.
18) Be honest. Editorials are too often rife with half truths and innuendo when authors are passionate, agenda driven or over concerned with their 'brand'. Disparage alt-news. Don't be part of the problem even if it violates the one-handed rule. Important problems are seldom without ambivalence, nuance and other sides.
16) Don't forget humility. The people you write about probably know a great deal more about the issues or particular aspects and have already considered your opinion. And many people will have insightful viewpoints, not just pundits who are generally wrong (see Nate Silver). A case in point is blue collar voters overlooked in the recent election. Without complete information you might be wrong and being wrong has consequences.
17) Try to say something useful and memorable. Say something your reader will take away and recall when talking with others. Say it at the beginning, the end, substantiate it, whatever is necessary so there is a take away that is actually taken away. Otherwise it is just writing.
18) Be honest. Editorials are too often rife with half truths and innuendo when authors are passionate, agenda driven or over concerned with their 'brand'. Disparage alt-news. Don't be part of the problem even if it violates the one-handed rule. Important problems are seldom without ambivalence, nuance and other sides.
5
In real life, blue collar voters who voted for Trump clearly did so because they believe his many lies, and they believed those lies because all that Trump has done is copy-pasting his campaign issues from the mostly lying narrative that Fox News has been spreading for decades now.
A real op-ed writer does some serious fact-checking. It's because most of them did, that they couldn't believe that a big minority in this country would believe Trump's lies.
So all that they didn't fully anticipated was how many people were actually already brainwashed by those lies.
But that doesn't turn those lies all of a sudden into proven truths though ... . Most of the pundits were right when it comes to the issues and what has been proven about it, and blue collar voters voting for Trump were wrong about it - and they were because they did not do any serious fact-checking and blindly followed no matter what Fox News told them to believe.
The truth isn't something that can be voted on, it has to be proven. Even if one day a majority of the American people would start voting for Trump and believe his lies, lies are still lies, once they're refuted.
"Humility" starts by recognizing that facts are neutral, not politically biased.
A real op-ed writer does some serious fact-checking. It's because most of them did, that they couldn't believe that a big minority in this country would believe Trump's lies.
So all that they didn't fully anticipated was how many people were actually already brainwashed by those lies.
But that doesn't turn those lies all of a sudden into proven truths though ... . Most of the pundits were right when it comes to the issues and what has been proven about it, and blue collar voters voting for Trump were wrong about it - and they were because they did not do any serious fact-checking and blindly followed no matter what Fox News told them to believe.
The truth isn't something that can be voted on, it has to be proven. Even if one day a majority of the American people would start voting for Trump and believe his lies, lies are still lies, once they're refuted.
"Humility" starts by recognizing that facts are neutral, not politically biased.
4
This was worth reading - if only to pick up President Truman's forlorn wish for a one handed economist. That picture will stick.
2
so the obvious question is, which of these attributes, does Bret offer? He opines on global warming of which he knows nothing and has no credentials. He opines on economics and politics, ditto his shortcomings. How did Bret get here? Lets get an honest answer from some other people who have to live with him at work, although from what I have read, the abiltly to parse a sentence is far more improtant than the ability to think logically, and to make judgements based on knowledge of the subject. For that, you must look to the likes of Jane Mayer in the New Yorker. Yes, Bret Stephens, why are you here? Can his co-workers or his editor let us know?
7
I think you skipped tip #6. "An op-ed should never be written in the style of a newspaper column. A columnist is a generalist, often with an idiosyncratic style, who performs for his readers. An op-ed contributor is a specialist who seeks only to inform them."
Mr. Stephens is a Columnist.
Mr. Stephens is a Columnist.
8
Really, @Vickie? - no regard for 'vigorously marshalled evidence" or 'authority' for the columnist? You think performance is all? As far as Bret is concerned, you are correct, and that is why he is quite useless, even harmful when it comes to his 'authority' on global warming. I don't even think he gets much in the performance department, either...Try reading some old Art Buchwald, for both performance and authority.
5
The NYT needed a conservative to draw in a few more subscribers "on the other hand," so they stole him from the WSJ. I cancelled my years-long subscription the day he wrote his first (awful) column. His remarks on climate change are without merit and contrary to scientific consensus, and only fuel the idiocies of many seeking a voice to prop up their absurd magical thinking. Ironically, his assertion that the NYT wants op-ed writers who do the unexpected - African Americans who oppose affirmative action, for instance - peddles worn-out stereotypes while simultaneously indicting the editors of the paper, casting them as clueless marketeers seeking cheap gimmicks. This appears to be exactly what they were doing when they hired him.
4
Editors are just people,they make mistakes .
We still have freedom of speech,use it.
I would argue hate speech belongs in the same category with you cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre!
A president like Trump must be impeached,and fast.
We still have freedom of speech,use it.
I would argue hate speech belongs in the same category with you cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre!
A president like Trump must be impeached,and fast.
2
I wrote an opinion piece that included an uncommon quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The editor cut the quote, I was convinced, to make room for my own thoughts. I was edified but not convinced.
3
Thank you. This is well considered. However, I take issue with the side point that columnists perform, and are different. They may perform, but they would still be well served by these rules. As generalists, they might well apply the 80:20 rule too.
Consider the example of Dr. Krugman. He holds a Nobel Prize in Economics. That is authority, the very definition of it. However, when he goes off that topic, he is in the realm of the 80:20 rule like anybody else, and would be well served by applying that rule. He is certainly capable of doing so, and the doing would advance his other causes.
I'm not picking on Krugman here, and I happen to like him very much even when I disagree. I give him as the example of "even him." It is more true for the others.
Consider the example of Dr. Krugman. He holds a Nobel Prize in Economics. That is authority, the very definition of it. However, when he goes off that topic, he is in the realm of the 80:20 rule like anybody else, and would be well served by applying that rule. He is certainly capable of doing so, and the doing would advance his other causes.
I'm not picking on Krugman here, and I happen to like him very much even when I disagree. I give him as the example of "even him." It is more true for the others.
4
You are picking on Krugman........ for no reason.
3
Honestly, do you think Krugman knows only one subject? I'd wager that those who regularly take him to task in this paper have never read any of his scholarly work, never mind his books for general audiences. The admonition that a Nobel Prize winner should stay in his lane insults the very idea of what it means to be educated. He's not teaching auto mechanics at Princeton. Economics is a discipline, an interdisciplinary field of study that encompasses history, sociology, statistics, political science, among others, and yes, 'ciphering. Most of these kinds of critics of academics are uninformed bomb-throwers taking out their inferiority complexes on those they resent for actually possessing knowledge, imagination and understanding. Class bullies picking on the smart nerds who actually studied and made something of themselves.
3
Brevity is preferable as long as clarity is there. There is such joy in reading a well written, reasoned article regardless of topic.
3
I'm sure Breitbart feels the same way. Mr Bert forgot to say that you must always write for the choir. i no longer read the WSJ, no matter how well written the articles are , because they DO NOT relect my own thinking, Though sometimes that can be a mistake. If we only eat jello, we miss out on the cheesecake. Money can't buy you love, but it can buy you a lot of pulpits, and the pulpit that you stand before is most likely going to be hte one reflecting your "faith. "
2
Great piece, but at least some acknowledgement is really due George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language", from which much of this appears to derive.
3
>
"Enough has been written."
Otto Rank
"Enough has been written."
Otto Rank
1
Needed this entertaining diversion - thanks.
1
If you really want a diversion to bring a smile to your face, give a squirrel a peanut and enjoy its pleasure in eating it.
16) Don't try to defend a republican president drawing a moral equivalency between nazis and people who oppose nazis, even if you're the junior conservative columnist at a major newspaper desperate for an angle. Coast through the weekend instead by writing a list of tips that if followed will ensure the most boring content imaginable.
25
A few tips specific to the Times:
Fit in a barb (or 50) about Trump and mention how his next action will destroy the world. Ignore that all such previous predictions did not come true.
Never call an illegal immigrant an illegal immigrant. Give them a more politically correct name.
Remember that every Muslim ever is a good person. The ones who have no issue indiscriminately murdering innocent people? Simply misunderstood.
Also remember that every white man is evil. The ones who have no issue indiscriminately murdering innocent people? Yea, attack those murderers. No political consequences for calling them out.
Ignore racism by all non-whites. Chris Rock caricatures Asians during the Oscars? Ignore that and continue posting #OscarsSoWhite. Because, as the politically correct know, only whites can be racist.
Focus all animus on Israel. They are clearly the most destructive and evil nation in all of existence. Ignore the Muslim nations that treat women as property. ALL MUSLIMS ARE GOOD.
Fit in a barb (or 50) about Trump and mention how his next action will destroy the world. Ignore that all such previous predictions did not come true.
Never call an illegal immigrant an illegal immigrant. Give them a more politically correct name.
Remember that every Muslim ever is a good person. The ones who have no issue indiscriminately murdering innocent people? Simply misunderstood.
Also remember that every white man is evil. The ones who have no issue indiscriminately murdering innocent people? Yea, attack those murderers. No political consequences for calling them out.
Ignore racism by all non-whites. Chris Rock caricatures Asians during the Oscars? Ignore that and continue posting #OscarsSoWhite. Because, as the politically correct know, only whites can be racist.
Focus all animus on Israel. They are clearly the most destructive and evil nation in all of existence. Ignore the Muslim nations that treat women as property. ALL MUSLIMS ARE GOOD.
8
Dear Frank:
Lesson to Frank: Be Frank.
Tell a guy named Frank exactly what you think. Remind him that Satire is what closes on opening night. Tell Frank to leave such mediocre attempts at parody to the pros from Dover. They know how it's done. As for moi, Frank-ly, I don't give a darn. Sleep Well, America, Frank's on the job.
DD
Manhattan
Lesson to Frank: Be Frank.
Tell a guy named Frank exactly what you think. Remind him that Satire is what closes on opening night. Tell Frank to leave such mediocre attempts at parody to the pros from Dover. They know how it's done. As for moi, Frank-ly, I don't give a darn. Sleep Well, America, Frank's on the job.
DD
Manhattan
7
Not funny. You missed tip #6 "An op-ed should never be written in the style of a newspaper column. A columnist is a generalist, often with an idiosyncratic style, who performs for his readers. An op-ed contributor is a specialist who seeks only to inform them."
Mr. Stephens is a columnist and was hired to give us his OPINION, whether we agree with him (or any columnist), or not is not the point. Reading comprehension is everything!!!
Mr. Stephens is a columnist and was hired to give us his OPINION, whether we agree with him (or any columnist), or not is not the point. Reading comprehension is everything!!!
1
Vicki, you missed his own words: "...a clear thesis, backed by rigorously marshaled evidence, in the service of a persuasive argument."
On certain subjects, climate science and Israeli politics to name just two, Stephens flagrantly leaves his own advice in the recycle bin.
On certain subjects, climate science and Israeli politics to name just two, Stephens flagrantly leaves his own advice in the recycle bin.
3
Here are are two for you.
1. Take a logic course--to know when conclusions follow from premisses.
2. Avoid hubris--like assuming your "ideal reader" has "normal intelligence"--which is inferior to yours, so authorizing your hector-lecture.
1. Take a logic course--to know when conclusions follow from premisses.
2. Avoid hubris--like assuming your "ideal reader" has "normal intelligence"--which is inferior to yours, so authorizing your hector-lecture.
4
Weird... I made a comment the other day that Brett's column would be a worthy undergraduate submission. I didn't realize that he actually had some kind of phone-it-in pedantic summer theme underway.
Any mention of the writer's voice in that strand of pearls?
Any mention of the writer's voice in that strand of pearls?
6
In phonaesthetics, the English compound noun cellar door has been cited as an example of a word or phrase which is beautiful purely in terms of its sound (euphony), without regard for semantics (i.e., meaning).
Because of the above I called my column in my college newspaper "Cellar Door" so does that make me a 80-20 "younger writer" at age 73?
Because of the above I called my column in my college newspaper "Cellar Door" so does that make me a 80-20 "younger writer" at age 73?
2
There must be a lot more people submitting op-eds to the NYT than usual...
P.S. Don't alienate the "ordinary subscriber" with adjectives such as oleaginous.
8
now you are on the slipery slope of arguments.
4
The one problem I have with op-eds is that it is clear that many are published solely because of WHO the writer is and not necessarily because the writer presents new or more persuasive arguments or because s/he offers a different perspective. I believe that an op-ed should be evaluated without knowledge of the author based solely on the merits of the piece. This can easily be accomplished by having someone strip the identifying information before the piece is passed along to the "evaluators." One does not have to be a "someone" to have great and potentially influential ideas. One sees the phenomenon in the book publishing industry too, where new authors have been turned down by multiple publishers only to have their book ginally become a classic. And no, I am not saying all thus because I have been turned down by an editor or publisher.
4
Oops, a couple of typos. One sees the phenomenon in the book publishing industry too, where new authors have been turned down by multiple publishers only to have their book FINALLY become a classic. And no, I am not saying all THIS because I have been turned down by an editor or publisher.
2
Great advice, but I do wish the op eds in today's Times were less one-sided. As a reader, nothing turns me off more quickly than sophistry, and too often, op ed articles simply brush aside arguments that they find inconvenient.
The world is a complicated, messy place and policies often involve compromise. Affirmative Action, for example, has been more successful at reducing discrimination than non-discrimination laws alone, and yet it also creates its own form of reverse discrimination, one in which some members of the minority group are hired despite lesser qualifications. And yet most discussions focus on only one or the other effect. Such columns may appeal to the ideologically committed, but to those of us who prefer to approach things with an open mind they are partisan lies. And for the most part, it is only those with open minds who *can* be convinced.
One can and should argue for what one considers the optimal policy or outcome, but unless a writer is only interested in convincing his ideological soulmates his article should contain a fair and honest discussion of the pros and cons.
The world is a complicated, messy place and policies often involve compromise. Affirmative Action, for example, has been more successful at reducing discrimination than non-discrimination laws alone, and yet it also creates its own form of reverse discrimination, one in which some members of the minority group are hired despite lesser qualifications. And yet most discussions focus on only one or the other effect. Such columns may appeal to the ideologically committed, but to those of us who prefer to approach things with an open mind they are partisan lies. And for the most part, it is only those with open minds who *can* be convinced.
One can and should argue for what one considers the optimal policy or outcome, but unless a writer is only interested in convincing his ideological soulmates his article should contain a fair and honest discussion of the pros and cons.
5
I applaud Mr. Stephens' advice to writers, which certainly has relevance beyond producing opinion pieces. However, I have to take issue with his seventh commandment to avoid the passive. Granted, in the hands of an inept author, use of the passive verb can signal weakness if not a total cop-out (where the agent of the action is omitted). On the other hand the passive can reinforce the subject as the victim or target of the action; it can frame the verb in a way which draws attention; it can provide just the right transition from the
preceding sentence--among other things. If I might modify his advice, it would
be to get to know the passive form, where it's power lies, and then use it
judiciously and artfully.
preceding sentence--among other things. If I might modify his advice, it would
be to get to know the passive form, where it's power lies, and then use it
judiciously and artfully.
5
The passive voice should NEVER be used, especially when oleaginous.
1
Passive oleagineaty seldom pleases Mr. Stephens. Nor ought it.
However, op eds frequently encourage passivity in timid writers.
Particularly when the points made smack of duplicity, as frequently occurs today, among celebrity correspondents.
However, op eds frequently encourage passivity in timid writers.
Particularly when the points made smack of duplicity, as frequently occurs today, among celebrity correspondents.
1
Bret says readers will look to op ed writers who have standing because they have expertise in their field or unique experience.
--Then stop opining on climate change. Your first column with here was on climate science: You minimized its serious nature by claiming "modest" warming of the earth while not being a climate scientist.
--Then claimed it should matter a poll taken last May-June of 1,574 people revealed Americans are indifferent or only somewhat bothered by climate change despite scientists raising the alarm on matters of climate.
--Then implied a climate scientist who crafted an article on being less interested in the reality of climate change after a suffering a stroke bolstered your claims that we should be skeptical of climate change.
--Then stop opining on climate change. Your first column with here was on climate science: You minimized its serious nature by claiming "modest" warming of the earth while not being a climate scientist.
--Then claimed it should matter a poll taken last May-June of 1,574 people revealed Americans are indifferent or only somewhat bothered by climate change despite scientists raising the alarm on matters of climate.
--Then implied a climate scientist who crafted an article on being less interested in the reality of climate change after a suffering a stroke bolstered your claims that we should be skeptical of climate change.
2
Dear Mr. Stevens:
Can you cut this list down to maybe, 5 points, maybe?
Can you cut this list down to maybe, 5 points, maybe?
7
Bret, you can say it shorter.
Skip "proleptic."
Try this: Omit needless words, omit needless words, omit needless words.
Skip "proleptic."
Try this: Omit needless words, omit needless words, omit needless words.
5
Bret is a collaborator/careerist first, writer second. He keeps his options open, he provokes, he scolds, but rarely says anything worthwhile. He's a climate change denier, which is as absurd as being a Holocaust denier.
Like Ann Coulter, he's a self-promoter. This paper has diminished itself by enabling Bret.
Like Ann Coulter, he's a self-promoter. This paper has diminished itself by enabling Bret.
22
Deniers are wrong, but they have a role. They keep us honest, keep us from group think. A chorus of people all agreeing with each other are well on their way to serious error.
Intelligence agencies are well served by a B-Team approach. A good legal team includes some who are devoted to thinking of the other side's best arguments, and keeping it grounded. Flights of "we are the victors" are sure signs of impending defeat.
Intelligence agencies are well served by a B-Team approach. A good legal team includes some who are devoted to thinking of the other side's best arguments, and keeping it grounded. Flights of "we are the victors" are sure signs of impending defeat.
3
Science contradicts your every assertion. There is no role for willful ignorance.
3
@Mark - Deniers do not keep us honest. Thoughtful, reasoned analysis based on facts counters scholarship with weaknesses. Deniers are propagandists with an agenda, or ignoramuses with their heads in the sand.
4
The meaning and connotations of words are always in flux, an example being "profanity." The original meaning: un-ecclesiastical, secular," from Old French profane (12c.) and directly from Latin profanus "unholy, not consecrated," Given now the term now implies sexual activity or propensities, yet the actual meaning depends on context, from a friendly bonding to those "fighting words" that augurs at the least a permanent breach of cordiality.
This newspaper described a heated conversation between the two most powerful leaders, one executive the other legislative, of the Republican party as "laced with profanity." It was either accurate or "fake," depending on the interpretation by the reader.
The current divisiveness is fueled by a language that has the qualities of either ambiguity or of tribal identification. By the time an unknown opinion writer has defined his/her own meanings, the reader has long since turned the page.
This newspaper described a heated conversation between the two most powerful leaders, one executive the other legislative, of the Republican party as "laced with profanity." It was either accurate or "fake," depending on the interpretation by the reader.
The current divisiveness is fueled by a language that has the qualities of either ambiguity or of tribal identification. By the time an unknown opinion writer has defined his/her own meanings, the reader has long since turned the page.
There's a different option available of course. It's called fact-checking.
What does "profanity" today mean? Just consult a serious dictionary and you'll know: it's a synonym for what is disrespectful. In other words, it's what gets bleeped on live TV shows, and what The Mooch's interview with Ryan was without any ambiguity full of.
So what does it mean when a news report in a high quality newspaper, not an op-ed, writes that Trump and McConnell had a profanity laced telephone conversation?
It means that journalists trained in verifying the truth have investigated trustworthy sources who witnessed that conversation, and discovered that all those sources agree that it contained a lot of words and expressions that were highly disrespectful of the person on the other side of the line.
To believe, as you seem to do, that the reader can decide whether this report was accurate or fake, is absurd. We can't, because there's no way to verify. The only reason we have to suppose that it was accurate is because it's NOT an op-ed, and because in general, news reports written in the NYT are accurate (and THAT we know because each time we CAN fact-check for ourselves, we discovered that they were mostly correct, in the past).
Conclusion:
1. "profanity" isn't ambiguous at all, as you'd have known if you'd have fact-checked its meaning.
2. it was used in a news report, not an op-ed, so by definition, when it's a NYT news report, readers can assume that it's correct, until refuted.
What does "profanity" today mean? Just consult a serious dictionary and you'll know: it's a synonym for what is disrespectful. In other words, it's what gets bleeped on live TV shows, and what The Mooch's interview with Ryan was without any ambiguity full of.
So what does it mean when a news report in a high quality newspaper, not an op-ed, writes that Trump and McConnell had a profanity laced telephone conversation?
It means that journalists trained in verifying the truth have investigated trustworthy sources who witnessed that conversation, and discovered that all those sources agree that it contained a lot of words and expressions that were highly disrespectful of the person on the other side of the line.
To believe, as you seem to do, that the reader can decide whether this report was accurate or fake, is absurd. We can't, because there's no way to verify. The only reason we have to suppose that it was accurate is because it's NOT an op-ed, and because in general, news reports written in the NYT are accurate (and THAT we know because each time we CAN fact-check for ourselves, we discovered that they were mostly correct, in the past).
Conclusion:
1. "profanity" isn't ambiguous at all, as you'd have known if you'd have fact-checked its meaning.
2. it was used in a news report, not an op-ed, so by definition, when it's a NYT news report, readers can assume that it's correct, until refuted.
4
Ana Luisa, one must always bear in mind that the Times has very specific rules concerning the use of anonymous sources:
"We allow the use of anonymous sources as a last resort for stories we consider reliable, newsworthy, and that can be reported in no other way." The rules also say that "we resist granting anonymity for opinion, speculation or personal atracks." Neither one of those policies is enforced in any meaningful fashion.
Just yesterday, on the digital front page, Maggie Haberman shared a byline on three articles, ALL of which had anonymous attribution. That is a lot of "last resorts." In fact, I can not remember the last article of hers I read without any anonymous sourcing.
And the Times allowed the late David Carr to use anonymous sources FROM THE TIMES' OWN NEWSROOM to viciously disparage the fired Jill Abramson.
"We allow the use of anonymous sources as a last resort for stories we consider reliable, newsworthy, and that can be reported in no other way." The rules also say that "we resist granting anonymity for opinion, speculation or personal atracks." Neither one of those policies is enforced in any meaningful fashion.
Just yesterday, on the digital front page, Maggie Haberman shared a byline on three articles, ALL of which had anonymous attribution. That is a lot of "last resorts." In fact, I can not remember the last article of hers I read without any anonymous sourcing.
And the Times allowed the late David Carr to use anonymous sources FROM THE TIMES' OWN NEWSROOM to viciously disparage the fired Jill Abramson.
2
The authority that you speak of is from the world of societal conformists. There are many areas that the society neglects or shuns. The expertise of these areas will never be able to get his or her opinion published by the New York Times, as you automatically rejetcts such a person without the societal recognition.
That kind of narrow-mindedness is what makes the New York Times a paper for the elites, not the general public. That flaw is what makes the national paper like yours impotent, as evidenced from the last presidential election.
That kind of narrow-mindedness is what makes the New York Times a paper for the elites, not the general public. That flaw is what makes the national paper like yours impotent, as evidenced from the last presidential election.
1
Expertise never suffers if required to "show its power." It is only a short hand.
Brevity is best.
2
Repetition can persuade. Rhetoric has many devices.
"It is not a news analysis or a weighing up of alternative views. It requires a clear thesis, backed by rigorously marshaled evidence, in the service of a persuasive argument. "
Wow, nice piece, but why is it that the NY Times opinion writers do not follow any of this advice?
Maybe#16 should be: No matter how much you fundamentally dislike something or someone, e.g., President Trump, never display anger, hate, nastiness, or disrespect, and never resort to name calling.
Wow, nice piece, but why is it that the NY Times opinion writers do not follow any of this advice?
Maybe#16 should be: No matter how much you fundamentally dislike something or someone, e.g., President Trump, never display anger, hate, nastiness, or disrespect, and never resort to name calling.
4
"never display anger, hate, nastiness, or disrespect, and never resort to name calling"
Lowering yourself never helps you. It may feel good, but you are in there in the mud with the pig, and the pig is having a good time.
Lowering yourself never helps you. It may feel good, but you are in there in the mud with the pig, and the pig is having a good time.
1
Here's my entire one-semester English comp course in 2 pages.
2
Change schools.
5
My condolences.
I disagree with his notion that "the editor is especially right when she axes the sentences or paragraphs of which you're most proud." This is giving editors a blank check to take the author out of the op-ed and make it the editor's piece. Editors may already be too emboldened in this practice. This happens in news stories, too. The editor needs to do her job, but the author should feel it's his work of writing and reporting. That means trying to keep sentences and paragraphs of which he is most proud.
3
"This is giving editors a blank check"
A good editor doesn't. Don't work with a bad editor.
A good editor doesn't. Don't work with a bad editor.
Two thoughts:
1) Point #4 would eliminate about 75% of what currently fills the column inches on most op-ed pages. Just saying'.
2) Why didn't you just address this directly to David Brooks at the beginning?
1) Point #4 would eliminate about 75% of what currently fills the column inches on most op-ed pages. Just saying'.
2) Why didn't you just address this directly to David Brooks at the beginning?
4
Great advice. Thank you learned a lot.
1
Now I know why this country is in such a mess! A true right-wing politician should support transgender right. Because government should not intrude personal right and freedom. An environmentalist may or may not support nuclear power because it has its pros and cons. Any scholar should oppose affirmative action based on race. We are supposed to have a color-blind society.
NYT is supposed to be different. Integrity, honesty, fair and balance should be the only factors in consideration. How about state the truths and avoid superficial and sensational statements. Using immigration as an example, I support immigration but I am against uncontrolled border crossing. Most importantly, policies of immigration should be decided by voters. The changing demographics in this nation never had consent of its citizens. It is wrong. Plain and simple.
However, NYT reported some sensational stories of the hardships some undocumented immigrants are facing. Of course I was saddened and touched after reading them. But the real solution is to work with South American countries and fix their economy. More sympathy and welcoming can only make the current situation worse.
Am I the only person seeking truths and finding solutions? Sad!
NYT is supposed to be different. Integrity, honesty, fair and balance should be the only factors in consideration. How about state the truths and avoid superficial and sensational statements. Using immigration as an example, I support immigration but I am against uncontrolled border crossing. Most importantly, policies of immigration should be decided by voters. The changing demographics in this nation never had consent of its citizens. It is wrong. Plain and simple.
However, NYT reported some sensational stories of the hardships some undocumented immigrants are facing. Of course I was saddened and touched after reading them. But the real solution is to work with South American countries and fix their economy. More sympathy and welcoming can only make the current situation worse.
Am I the only person seeking truths and finding solutions? Sad!
2
No, you're just hysterical.
2
JC
You say: Using immigration as an example, I support immigration but I am against uncontrolled border crossing. Most importantly, policies of immigration should be decided by voters. The changing demographics in this nation never had consent of its citizens.
Please be prolepticer. You build arguments of straw men. For example, there is no uncontrolled border crossing. Mr. Obama saw to that, thank you. Even Gurbanguly Malikguliyevich Berdymukhammedov could not get in without a passport.
Demographics in the US would be changing even without uncontrolled border crossing. Other than a chorus line of recently noticed Nazis, who says changing demographics is a bad thing? You didn't really think you were living at the end the line?
It's nice you were touched by stories of hardship among undocumented immigrants; far nicer if you would contribute something to ease their pain. Time is best, money isn't all bad. You might learn more by making contact with actual people instead of settling for journalistic abstractions.
You have apparently been so engrossed in such stories that you haven't noticed our economy. We are in no position to advise others, particularly as concerns their least fortunate citizens.
On the other hand, our failure to offer meaningful aid may be due to the way we base offers of help on an extraordinary list of conditions recipients must meet or agree to before we step foot in the place. That, and if we like their politics.
Ah, Brevity! You desert me...
You say: Using immigration as an example, I support immigration but I am against uncontrolled border crossing. Most importantly, policies of immigration should be decided by voters. The changing demographics in this nation never had consent of its citizens.
Please be prolepticer. You build arguments of straw men. For example, there is no uncontrolled border crossing. Mr. Obama saw to that, thank you. Even Gurbanguly Malikguliyevich Berdymukhammedov could not get in without a passport.
Demographics in the US would be changing even without uncontrolled border crossing. Other than a chorus line of recently noticed Nazis, who says changing demographics is a bad thing? You didn't really think you were living at the end the line?
It's nice you were touched by stories of hardship among undocumented immigrants; far nicer if you would contribute something to ease their pain. Time is best, money isn't all bad. You might learn more by making contact with actual people instead of settling for journalistic abstractions.
You have apparently been so engrossed in such stories that you haven't noticed our economy. We are in no position to advise others, particularly as concerns their least fortunate citizens.
On the other hand, our failure to offer meaningful aid may be due to the way we base offers of help on an extraordinary list of conditions recipients must meet or agree to before we step foot in the place. That, and if we like their politics.
Ah, Brevity! You desert me...
2
"Readers will look to authors who have standing." This is dishonest and obnoxious. The Times, for examples, bestows all the "standing" one needs by simple virtue of publication of an Op-Ed. That makes it dishonest. And the this author's implication that only those with a platform need apply amounts to discrimination on the basis of status rather than the quality of the ideas and writing. That makes it obnoxious. Is that concise enough for you?
2
"It requires a clear thesis, backed by rigorously marshaled evidence, (...)."
I couldn't agree more. But in that case, why did the NYT accept someone like Bret Stephens as an op-ed writer?
I only see one possible explanation: because today, there aren't any right-wing intellectuals anymore, and no longer doing any serious fact-checking has become the mainstream right-wing attitude. So IF you want both left and right-wing opinions represented in your op-ed pages (as all high quality media want), then you cannot but employ conservative op-ed writers who are no longer able to respect point 3 in this list of basic requirements to get your op-ed published.
Sad.
I couldn't agree more. But in that case, why did the NYT accept someone like Bret Stephens as an op-ed writer?
I only see one possible explanation: because today, there aren't any right-wing intellectuals anymore, and no longer doing any serious fact-checking has become the mainstream right-wing attitude. So IF you want both left and right-wing opinions represented in your op-ed pages (as all high quality media want), then you cannot but employ conservative op-ed writers who are no longer able to respect point 3 in this list of basic requirements to get your op-ed published.
Sad.
5
If only I'd read this 30 years ago when I tried to get my first op-ed piece published. I asked my city editor if he thought it was good enough to show Pete, the cruel master of our oped section. He looked up over his bifocals and said, "not unless you want to be fired. Cut it in half and I might look at it again." I still blush at my presumption that Pete would read it, fall in love with my brilliant mind, and invite me to join him and his slightly nervous writers on the spot. Mark Twain would have called me a "noble idiot."
What Mr. Stephens believes about topics is irrelevant here. The advice he gives to writers wanting to publish their own opinions is both accurate and succinct. I've saved it so that I don't have to speak when young, presumptuous writers ask me questions.
What Mr. Stephens believes about topics is irrelevant here. The advice he gives to writers wanting to publish their own opinions is both accurate and succinct. I've saved it so that I don't have to speak when young, presumptuous writers ask me questions.
4
Thanks. I can recall a similar event happening to me. Lots of red ink on the first paragraph, and then told to go back and do it like that.
2
LOL oleaginous!
2
I avoid cliches like the plague..
20
Doesn't matter.
All it needs to be is an unhinged anti-Trump leftist rant. The more biting and bitter the better.
Lots of "recommends" and "picks" guaranteed.
All it needs to be is an unhinged anti-Trump leftist rant. The more biting and bitter the better.
Lots of "recommends" and "picks" guaranteed.
5
Today. That will only serve for the moment, then things will move on.
Gee, too bad you didn't take your own advice in your climate change columns ....
47
Quite a lot of good advice here. Much more than you will usually find in an Op-ed column, which usually is not an essay on composition.
This is reality based - so much more sensible than Mr. Stephens' work often is on politics or recent history. I think that Mr. Stephens would be better employed writing similar pieces for a magazine that specializes in this field, such as Writer's Digest.
This is reality based - so much more sensible than Mr. Stephens' work often is on politics or recent history. I think that Mr. Stephens would be better employed writing similar pieces for a magazine that specializes in this field, such as Writer's Digest.
4
Another tip: don't be a climate science denier. Being one is stupid and wrong.
80
Yea verily, Bret Stephens. I've never written, nor been asked to write, an op-ed piece, but I have had the joy of seeing many of my Letters to the Editor published. I attribute my successes to brevity and occasionally wisecracking.
11
I especially liked the admonition against "high-flown jargon". Having to read a passage several times to get the point is a waste of time and effort not to mention annoying. Keep it simple, stupid.
3
Anthony Trollope could not have said it better, and a seasoned and measured reporter writes:
1) Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print;
2) Never use a long word where a short one will do;
3) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out;
4) Never use the passive where you can use the active;
5) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an English equivalent;
6) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
Hum, '1984' sums it up correctly.
1) Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print;
2) Never use a long word where a short one will do;
3) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out;
4) Never use the passive where you can use the active;
5) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an English equivalent;
6) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
Hum, '1984' sums it up correctly.
Is this an example of "those who can, do; those who can't, teach?"
6
I assume Stephens aims at experts in a field who want to write an op-ed, not opinion page columnists. Clearly, none of the Times opinion writers have a particular area of expertise. Including Bret. That's the nature of journalism. They opine on a wide variety of topics, often with nothing but their liberal biases to guide them.
If, however, Bret targets experts, that's different. Bret hits the target with most points except:
1) Odds are readers of op-eds are bright (even Times readers), not merely of normal intelligence, and can detect a faulty argument. Most however aren't experts in the topic written about
2) When you write a scientific paper you don't waste time or space debunking opposing theories (unless your research directly contradicts a given body of research). I would not cloud an op-ed piece by refuting what I perceive as opposing views. In fact, in most fields you simply make your point. If someone wishes a rebuttal, wait until then to respond.
If, however, Bret targets experts, that's different. Bret hits the target with most points except:
1) Odds are readers of op-eds are bright (even Times readers), not merely of normal intelligence, and can detect a faulty argument. Most however aren't experts in the topic written about
2) When you write a scientific paper you don't waste time or space debunking opposing theories (unless your research directly contradicts a given body of research). I would not cloud an op-ed piece by refuting what I perceive as opposing views. In fact, in most fields you simply make your point. If someone wishes a rebuttal, wait until then to respond.
A scientific paper is designed to prove a hypothesis or describe a newly discovered fact. It is written in such a way that no matter what expert in the field knows how to fact-check the results by either going through the described experiences himself, or by fact-checking the process through which the discovery was made.
An op-ed, as Stephens correctly points out, is designed to do the exact opposite: to formulate an opinion. Opinions are by definition ideas about that which cannot be proven. And the only way to formulate opinions that can be interesting for no matter what non expert to read, is, as Stephens recalls, to clearly indicate when you're developing a non proven hypothesis (= your interpretation of the facts, or opinion) and when you're mentioning proven facts (and if possible, to insert links so that readers can see whether you rendered those facts correctly or already included an interpretation without admitting that you did).
Maybe it's because you don't seem to understand the difference between a scientific paper or scientifically proven fact, an op-ed, an journalism (= reporting the news) that apparently you adhere to the opinion that most NYT op-eds have a "liberal bias"?
The NYT is a center-left newspaper, so of course many (but certainly not all) of its op-eds defend liberal opinions. THAT isn't what makes them "biased" though, bias arises when you distort or deny a proven truth, whereas a debate of OPINIONS is crucial to obtain a thriving democracy... !
An op-ed, as Stephens correctly points out, is designed to do the exact opposite: to formulate an opinion. Opinions are by definition ideas about that which cannot be proven. And the only way to formulate opinions that can be interesting for no matter what non expert to read, is, as Stephens recalls, to clearly indicate when you're developing a non proven hypothesis (= your interpretation of the facts, or opinion) and when you're mentioning proven facts (and if possible, to insert links so that readers can see whether you rendered those facts correctly or already included an interpretation without admitting that you did).
Maybe it's because you don't seem to understand the difference between a scientific paper or scientifically proven fact, an op-ed, an journalism (= reporting the news) that apparently you adhere to the opinion that most NYT op-eds have a "liberal bias"?
The NYT is a center-left newspaper, so of course many (but certainly not all) of its op-eds defend liberal opinions. THAT isn't what makes them "biased" though, bias arises when you distort or deny a proven truth, whereas a debate of OPINIONS is crucial to obtain a thriving democracy... !
8
Oh Ana Luisa, where to begin. Opinion pieces are based on facts -- or the author's selected facts. The same rule of parsimony that drives all good writing suggests very strongly that you make your point and get off stage. Wandering around defending yourself against other interpretations of the known facts diffuses your argument. A jazz pianist doesn't start out a performance of say, "Autumn Leaves" by first playing it the way Art Tatum played it, then saying, but you know, I think Art missed it, here's how I think it should go. No, you simply play the way you want to and get off. An architect doesn't present alternative designs for a building that he thinks are inferior first. He or she simply present their design.
I understand the difference between opinion pieces and journalistic pieces. Unfortunately, the Times doesn't seem to a great deal of the time.
As for the liberal bias of the Times, that's an understatement As far as distorting known (or available facts) the Times does it all the time. For example, the Sunday Review piece by Filopovic re Trump stalking Hillary during their 2nd debate is a complete fabrication. The visual record shows clearly she invaded his space, not the other way around.
And then we have the suggestion in a couple of columns that Hurricane Harvey is perhaps a result of climate change which is pure bunk without any evidence.
I understand the difference between opinion pieces and journalistic pieces. Unfortunately, the Times doesn't seem to a great deal of the time.
As for the liberal bias of the Times, that's an understatement As far as distorting known (or available facts) the Times does it all the time. For example, the Sunday Review piece by Filopovic re Trump stalking Hillary during their 2nd debate is a complete fabrication. The visual record shows clearly she invaded his space, not the other way around.
And then we have the suggestion in a couple of columns that Hurricane Harvey is perhaps a result of climate change which is pure bunk without any evidence.
1
@ Ralphie
Uh ... so now you want to confound political opinions and art ... ?
Art is designed to broaden the horizon of our senses by proposing new experiences and emotions, all while prolonging (even through disruption) existing traditions in order to keep those inventions meaningful.
An op-ed however is designed to propose a way forward on this or that political issue, knowing that politics isn't a hard science and that laws have to be made that determine our future without knowing entirely whether they will produce the hoped for results.
So of course, an op-ed (and ideally each new law) has to be fact-based, which includes clearly indicating when what you say has been proven to be true, and when you're entering unchartered waters and proposing a subjective interpretation allowing us to decide what to do, but where alternative interpretations are just as interesting and subjective.
Art Tatum, however, can quote parts of past interpretations of a jazz standard and invent new ones without having to TELL us when he's doing what - because this is art. He also isn't proposing new laws that will have a large impact on millions of people ...
As to "liberal bias": I hope you realize that you're referring (Hillary piece) to an op-ed (= something providing a subjective interpretation, and NOT claiming to merely objectively reflect the truth), not a news report, and understand that "bias" means distorting or denying the truth ALL WHILE telling us that it's the truth... ?
Uh ... so now you want to confound political opinions and art ... ?
Art is designed to broaden the horizon of our senses by proposing new experiences and emotions, all while prolonging (even through disruption) existing traditions in order to keep those inventions meaningful.
An op-ed however is designed to propose a way forward on this or that political issue, knowing that politics isn't a hard science and that laws have to be made that determine our future without knowing entirely whether they will produce the hoped for results.
So of course, an op-ed (and ideally each new law) has to be fact-based, which includes clearly indicating when what you say has been proven to be true, and when you're entering unchartered waters and proposing a subjective interpretation allowing us to decide what to do, but where alternative interpretations are just as interesting and subjective.
Art Tatum, however, can quote parts of past interpretations of a jazz standard and invent new ones without having to TELL us when he's doing what - because this is art. He also isn't proposing new laws that will have a large impact on millions of people ...
As to "liberal bias": I hope you realize that you're referring (Hillary piece) to an op-ed (= something providing a subjective interpretation, and NOT claiming to merely objectively reflect the truth), not a news report, and understand that "bias" means distorting or denying the truth ALL WHILE telling us that it's the truth... ?
A bit windy, Bret. Brevity is the soul of everything.
3
"Brevity is the soul of lingerie."
I believe Dorothy Parker said that. Have to check.
I believe Dorothy Parker said that. Have to check.
Reading Stephens's Op-Ed "Tips" for helpful advice is about as useful as reading Polonius's "Brevity is the soul of wit." Each practices the opposite of what he preaches.
3
Maclean took the Minister's advice and in all his 88 years wrote only one little collection but it was tight. He wrote many more books but they were edited out of existence. His kids prompted him to write the River book. They were tired of hearing the same stories again and again. Maclean was notoriously cheap. He could've at least capitalized his own 'L." Lemme give you a little piece of advice Mr Stephens. You should've taken the blue pill. Don't mind me. I never learned a darn thing. You've written a good article.
How about offering a realistic solution? Everyone can whine.
2
Is this advice for the rabble, or NYT columnists?
3
Enjoyable fun op-ed piece. (is this an op-ed piece?)
6
I barely skimmed this, because I wonder what his point in writing the piece is. I don't look to the Op-Ed page for general writing advice.
8
When I was a journalism major many years ago, one piece of advice we often heard was, "Tell me quick and tell me true, or else my love to hell with you."
I don't remember the source of the quote, but it applies to most types of writing: from journalistic reporting to editorial writing to advertising copy
writing.
I think it also applies to personal correspondence. Stop writing and stop writing and get to the point.
I don't remember the source of the quote, but it applies to most types of writing: from journalistic reporting to editorial writing to advertising copy
writing.
I think it also applies to personal correspondence. Stop writing and stop writing and get to the point.
4
Stephens here wiolates a principle of good writing that paragrap;hs should begin with the most important point to be made, and end with the second-most important. In several of these tips, he hides the most important point in the middle.
2
Fun! Thank you, Mr. Stephens. A neighbor and I were sitting on his porch admiring the view and we agreed that it would be nice to be R & F, although on second thought, we decided that the price of fame came at a high cost. Neither of us are planning a sunny trip South, and instead are busy restoring our nests. He is cooing for a partner and a wish for company, while I am trying to write.
Not all of us are born to be Op-Ed Writers, however, and the comment section of the NYTimes is quite astonishing at times. Here I am trying to learn to summarize an essay with feeble results. If at first you don't succeed, try, try again said a father to his son as he joined his fifth bride in a Cadillac.
To cut to the chase, revisiting my youth in reading 'Pundits, Poets and Wits', by Karl E. Meyer, a former O-Ed columnist for the New Times who on the occasion of my 30th birthday gave me the following:
Voices of the Deep - The voice said something like this: "Tension pasjers sistrain will make onlxpress stop huntwenfif necks." A friend heard the announcement on an IRT local during rush hour, and it was his frantic guess that for unfathomable reasons the train was turning into an IND express. Only the day before, the reverse had occurred...the unreliability of New York subways is an old problem maybe not curable for years"
Enjoy the remainder of this August weekend and will leave it up to you to determine whether We are heading towards a National Train Wreck.
Not all of us are born to be Op-Ed Writers, however, and the comment section of the NYTimes is quite astonishing at times. Here I am trying to learn to summarize an essay with feeble results. If at first you don't succeed, try, try again said a father to his son as he joined his fifth bride in a Cadillac.
To cut to the chase, revisiting my youth in reading 'Pundits, Poets and Wits', by Karl E. Meyer, a former O-Ed columnist for the New Times who on the occasion of my 30th birthday gave me the following:
Voices of the Deep - The voice said something like this: "Tension pasjers sistrain will make onlxpress stop huntwenfif necks." A friend heard the announcement on an IRT local during rush hour, and it was his frantic guess that for unfathomable reasons the train was turning into an IND express. Only the day before, the reverse had occurred...the unreliability of New York subways is an old problem maybe not curable for years"
Enjoy the remainder of this August weekend and will leave it up to you to determine whether We are heading towards a National Train Wreck.
Editors who have problems with buzz words like toolbox, reimagining and stakeholder need to dial back their stuffy superiority. The repulsive mental slop of yesterday becomes the "op-ed", "high-flown jargon", "VIP" and "transgender" of today. That's how language works. It's not static; it grows.
1
Right wingers have a need to lecture us about how to read for some reason. Safire did this with humor at least, but I could never forgive his Nixon history.
Bret enables Trump, which is worse than the phony cleverness of using rare words and sly equivocations he employs to cover up a shallow mind.
Bret enables Trump, which is worse than the phony cleverness of using rare words and sly equivocations he employs to cover up a shallow mind.
16
Meh, Op-ed's: double plus think good.
"Rigorously marshalled evidence" is often woefully absent when Stephens flogs his hobbyhorse of climate science denial, but the Times knew that when it hired him.
50
A day which will live in infamy. Lewis, Wicker, Baker, Herbert are nauseous.
3
Nauseated. Trump is nauseous.
1
Well, stated. However, one frequently cannot provide "rigorously marshalled evidence" without some attention to "alternative views," especially when they offer patently powerful alternative hypotheses, ie., without some regard for the scientific method, our best safeguard against the most common Op-Ed method, rhetorical manipulation or sophistry.
4
File this article with the "How to Read a Column" by the late William Safire
3
File it in File 13.
As for your Velveeta, the excellent Carlos Lozada at WAPO has a handy starter guide.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2014/02/27/the-outlook-l...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2014/02/27/the-outlook-l...
1
Authority, expertise, brevity: which one does Maureen Dowd offer, again?
8
True. Stephens forgot Thomas Friedman's favorite technique, name dropping.
4
He forgot snark.
1
This is an annoying, smirking essay. It reminds me of W.F. Buckley's use of words to disguise and hide arrogance--- no matter the topic.
Bret knows something that you don't, this essay screams, except a careful reader is overcome by Bret's basic banality.
Bret knows something that you don't, this essay screams, except a careful reader is overcome by Bret's basic banality.
10
The writing rules of Bret Stephens appear to favor edgy entertainment over enlightenment.
Mulling over the type of writer he favors, the phrase “smug provocateur” comes to mind.
Mulling over the type of writer he favors, the phrase “smug provocateur” comes to mind.
4
I'd be curious if the editor left Bret's number 14) as written.
Dang, I got to item 15 too late; I chose poorly and read your whole column.
5 minutes lost to eternity!
5 minutes lost to eternity!
10
And you may have missed one point. Write with at least a hint of enjoyment, perhaps more or less depending on the topic. It's no fun reading someone who writes as if it's no fun writing.
4
Good advice. Thanks
2
Where do I click "Like"?
2
What an odd place for this advice since the New York Times seldom publishes freelancers. Much better to contact the Washington Post, where you can get published and paid.
15
You left out the essential requirement for nytimes Op-Eds : it must be on a politically correct topic, written from the politically correct point of view.
3
Is that what his own columns do? You might want to reread them.
Also, admit your biases: if you are so ardent a defender of a pseudo-democracy like Israel that you can't ever see its failings, chose a different topic.
5
One of the most pompous op-eds I have ever read.
"The purpose of an op-ed is to offer an opinion." Oh, for God's sake.......
Assumptions galore, all demeaning to the reader.
Bret needs a good editor.
"The purpose of an op-ed is to offer an opinion." Oh, for God's sake.......
Assumptions galore, all demeaning to the reader.
Bret needs a good editor.
20
The only tip that matters at the Times: Write mean things about Trump. You will be published
3
Let's fact-check that hypothesis for a moment.
So how does this op-ed "write mean things about Trump", more precisely?
Any ideas?
So how does this op-ed "write mean things about Trump", more precisely?
Any ideas?
4
I think it's funny that Stephen used the word "oleaginous" in the very paragraph he says to write for a broad community, for people of "normal intelligence", and to not use "high-flown jargon". Or maybe it's just me. I've never even heard the word "oleaginous" before! I'll have to look it up.
6
It was so egregious, that at first I thought he was making a joke.
1
Oily is the English translation. Having taken Organic Chemistry might help...
2
I think that was the point.
1
"There are no good writers. There are only good re-writers." -- My college writing professor
"That's not writing. That's typing." -- Truman Capote on Jack Kerouac's On the Road
"That's not writing. That's typing." -- Truman Capote on Jack Kerouac's On the Road
5
Close, but I think one problem with modern reporting is the style, idiosyncratic or otherwise. There is so much opinion in "news" that it doesn't matter what your styles are. No one can detect the difference between news and opinion, and that contributes to the cries of fake news.
1
It's not because more and more people don't see how to distinguish between news and opinion anymore, that a very easy way to find out whether an article mainly reports the news or proposes an opinion would no longer exist: it's called fact-checking.
As soon as you do, the distinction once again becomes crystal clear.
It's also when you cannot but notice that today, one political party and its propaganda machines are offering much more opinions all while calling it "news" than the other party, and that party is obviously the GOP.
An example?
Trump's slogan "the failing NYT" that according to him is "fake news" ... whereas in real life, it's quite easy to prove beyond any doubt that the exact opposite is true.
As soon as you do, the distinction once again becomes crystal clear.
It's also when you cannot but notice that today, one political party and its propaganda machines are offering much more opinions all while calling it "news" than the other party, and that party is obviously the GOP.
An example?
Trump's slogan "the failing NYT" that according to him is "fake news" ... whereas in real life, it's quite easy to prove beyond any doubt that the exact opposite is true.
Excellent advice, Mr. Stephens.
When do you plan to put it into practice?
Regards,
JV
When do you plan to put it into practice?
Regards,
JV
41
Good to know that Stephens understands how to write a decent op-ed. It would be great if he followed his own advice... particularly #4.
6
To whom is this article addressed? Mere mortals have zero chance of having their "Op-Ed" piece published in the NYT. It's hard enough to get a letter published, let alone an Op-Ed article. This is not a criticism, just a fact that is easily explainable by the sheer supply and demand for the coveted space. It is understandable that the paper has to take into account not just the quality of the article, but also who wrote it.
2
Not true. I got published in the NYTimes Op-Ed twice....and I'm a mere mortal
1
Mark Twain: "Yours was not, in the beginning, a criminal nature, but circumstances changed it. At the age of nine you stole sugar. At the age of 15 you stole money. At twenty you stole horses. At 25 you committed arson. At 30, hardened in crime, you became an editor."
Mr. Stephens is correct, beyond just writing for op-ed pieces. These are good bits of advice for other writers of non-fiction. Many essays and books are much longer than necessary. But many great writers break rules.
NYTs writers have touched on qualities of good editors in the past: https://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2014/06/16/what-makes-a-great-edit... . That link goes to part one of three parts.
Having said this, I am known for more than one bad choice.
Mr. Stephens is correct, beyond just writing for op-ed pieces. These are good bits of advice for other writers of non-fiction. Many essays and books are much longer than necessary. But many great writers break rules.
NYTs writers have touched on qualities of good editors in the past: https://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2014/06/16/what-makes-a-great-edit... . That link goes to part one of three parts.
Having said this, I am known for more than one bad choice.
2
He's a fine writer, his opinions are not.
3
One thing you haven't learned, Mr. Stephens, is that taking non-stop, gratuitous jabs at Democratic policies of the previous administration wins you zero support from readers who might otherwise be persuaded to consider your point of view. What you consistently fail to grasp is that many Times readers admire Barack Obama. We don't care to read dismissive and unsubstantiated comments about his "failed" policies, many of which we don't consider "failures."
Despite my almost constant outrage at Douthat and Brooks, I still continue to read them. I no longer read you. This column is an exception because it isn't about policy.
You have not mastered the very art you are attempting to teach others. All your otherwise decent advice matters not if people on the other end of the ideas spectrum don't want to read you.
Despite my almost constant outrage at Douthat and Brooks, I still continue to read them. I no longer read you. This column is an exception because it isn't about policy.
You have not mastered the very art you are attempting to teach others. All your otherwise decent advice matters not if people on the other end of the ideas spectrum don't want to read you.
9
16) Stay well within the permitted parameters. Not to worry. This is often a result of having already internalized them.
The more I read Bret Stephens and others in this paper the more I take to heart the 9th lesson from Timothy Snyder's "ON TYRANNTY."
It has to do with language and ends with these two sentences:
1. Make an effort to remove yourself from the internet.
2. Read more books.
P.S. I used to receive home delivery of the NYT, so all I had to do was open my front door and pick up the little blue bag. You cannot do that in Vermont, and I am not driving to the store.
It has to do with language and ends with these two sentences:
1. Make an effort to remove yourself from the internet.
2. Read more books.
P.S. I used to receive home delivery of the NYT, so all I had to do was open my front door and pick up the little blue bag. You cannot do that in Vermont, and I am not driving to the store.
1
Good points! A synergistic win-win strategy. But, on the other hand ...
2
"Readers will look to authors who have standing, either because they have expertise in their field or unique experience of a subject." The advice for aspiring op-ed writers can & should be extrapolated to politicians. How many times have we heard politicians admit "I'm not a scientist, but....". Henceforth, please just stop at the word "scientist" and spare us the ideological explanations.
3
And always be wary of received wisdom.
Writer's advice from an op-ed writer I usually strongly disagree with? I almost failed to read this op-ed precisely because I was wondering "And why should the reader care what you, of all people, have to say about it?".
But then my tendency to try to better understand those I disagree with took the upper hand, so I started reading anyhow - and I have to admit that overall, this must be more or less the first op-ed written by Stephens that I can agree with.
Two remarks, nevertheless ... :
1. It's true that when Proust wrote op-eds (something he did on a regular basis), he maintained a highly elaborated style, refusing to start adopting short sentences, as Stephens is advising here. But at the time it wasn't just Proust who saw op-eds as occasions to create literary jewels, most op-ed writers did so, and put a lot of effort into trying to be as eloquent as possible, even when that means longer sentences (which, by the way, are often better suited to rendering nuances than short ones ... and no, it's not because you're defending an opinion that you have to get rid of nuances!). In the current Twitter era, however, Stephens may be right: people may no longer have the attention span required to concentrate on long sentences - and nuances, unfortunately.
2. " Read over each sentence (...) and ask yourself: Is this true? Can I defend every single word of it? Did I get the facts (...) exactly right?"
How can Stephens write this, AND accept most his own op-eds ... ?
But then my tendency to try to better understand those I disagree with took the upper hand, so I started reading anyhow - and I have to admit that overall, this must be more or less the first op-ed written by Stephens that I can agree with.
Two remarks, nevertheless ... :
1. It's true that when Proust wrote op-eds (something he did on a regular basis), he maintained a highly elaborated style, refusing to start adopting short sentences, as Stephens is advising here. But at the time it wasn't just Proust who saw op-eds as occasions to create literary jewels, most op-ed writers did so, and put a lot of effort into trying to be as eloquent as possible, even when that means longer sentences (which, by the way, are often better suited to rendering nuances than short ones ... and no, it's not because you're defending an opinion that you have to get rid of nuances!). In the current Twitter era, however, Stephens may be right: people may no longer have the attention span required to concentrate on long sentences - and nuances, unfortunately.
2. " Read over each sentence (...) and ask yourself: Is this true? Can I defend every single word of it? Did I get the facts (...) exactly right?"
How can Stephens write this, AND accept most his own op-eds ... ?
4
This is great advice for any kind of writing.
3
Mr Stephens should follow his own counsel. His contributions to The Times, so far, have been uninformative and boring.
2
Thank you Mr. Stephans. I saved your column, and resolve to re-read it when I am going to submit a comment.
I looked up "Oleaginous". Somehow I knew you were secretly writing about DJT.
I looked up "Oleaginous". Somehow I knew you were secretly writing about DJT.
How on earth did you ever work at the Murdock owned media outlet WSJ?
I have read a few of your climate change and environment related articles which manifestly violate items 3 and 4 in your list.
I have read a few of your climate change and environment related articles which manifestly violate items 3 and 4 in your list.
3
Keep this column, and read it every time before you put your opinion in words. Mr. Stephens provides superb advice. A colleague and well known (in our circles) author who recently helped me whip a chapter into much better shape than when I sent it to him once told me, "If you can't stand being edited, you risk sounding like yourself." Maybe I should have let him look at this before I clicked 'submit.'
33
Just be critical of Trump and you will have a ready & reliable readership.
3
What nonsense: Stephans, Brooks, and Douthat are GOP all the way.
4
To point no. 2. "The ideal reader of an op-ed is the ordinary subscriber - a person of normal intelligence who will be happy to learn something from you, provided he can readily understand what you're saying"
Having a steady gig at the New York Times Op-Ed desk does not exclude one from this consideration. Yet some Times Op-Eds seem to write as if they were out to impress readers with obscure words or phrases rather than using the clearest language to make their case. Varying the vocabulary and inserting occasional words/historical references from Latin, Greek or other sources may add interest and color, but do not cross the line into obscurity: That's a distraction. Keep the line of thought clear by minimizing distractions.
Having a steady gig at the New York Times Op-Ed desk does not exclude one from this consideration. Yet some Times Op-Eds seem to write as if they were out to impress readers with obscure words or phrases rather than using the clearest language to make their case. Varying the vocabulary and inserting occasional words/historical references from Latin, Greek or other sources may add interest and color, but do not cross the line into obscurity: That's a distraction. Keep the line of thought clear by minimizing distractions.
2
What matters is ideas, firm opinion, style, and passion for writing, rest is Op-Ed page Editor's choice and reader's response.
1
You could omit "Op'-Ed" from your title and still have an excellent piece. (And following your advice I was able to shorten that one sentence by half.)
3
16. If you are writing for the NYT,, be politically correct.
5
But most importantly, make sure you have a sterling affiliation or name value.
The interns who winnow the pile of submissions are instructed that there is no "merit" without name recognition, so don't waste your time reading "nobodies."
The interns who winnow the pile of submissions are instructed that there is no "merit" without name recognition, so don't waste your time reading "nobodies."
1
You have no proof of these assertions. Interns? Instructed? Name recognition?
Saying something doesn't make it true.
Saying something doesn't make it true.
1
Comment! As the French say on occasion. It is a waste of time to go in search of a budding Shakespeare, and revisit only Old Voices because they have a handle on their name? Some of us would still be unemployed, if we were unable to secure a first job. In the meantime, thank you for the reminder to read The Diary of a Nobody.
Wonderful article, Mr. Stephens. Thanks.
Guess what? I am NOT an op-ed writer. Not since the days of my youth, writing an occasional piece for my college newspaper.
I AM a retired Latin teacher. I love the Latin language. The language of the conquerors of the world. It rings like iron. Or gold. Wonderful!
BUT GET THE LATIN OUT OF ENGLISH!
I mean it. I am allergic to long, Latinate words in a piece of English prose. Especially two Latinate words in one sentence. Or three. Or four. Sakes! how they clog the writing. It drags along under its polysyllabic carapace. Hateful. I hate it.
And the Latin creeps in! It sneaks in. I have read of Daniel Webster (eminent senator and orator) faithfully going over his own writings, excising the Latinate words (where he decently could) and sticking in their Anglo-Saxon equivalents.
He went over President Harrison's inaugural address. "And I killed seventeen Roman pro-consuls," he remarked. "Dead as smelts, every one of them."
That always makes me laugh.
And hey! That about the Velveeta. As a child, I would ferret the stuff out of the refrigerator and cut a slice. A little snack you understand.
Ugh! Can't believe I ever did that. Eventually I grew up.
Thanks again, Mr. Stephens.
Guess what? I am NOT an op-ed writer. Not since the days of my youth, writing an occasional piece for my college newspaper.
I AM a retired Latin teacher. I love the Latin language. The language of the conquerors of the world. It rings like iron. Or gold. Wonderful!
BUT GET THE LATIN OUT OF ENGLISH!
I mean it. I am allergic to long, Latinate words in a piece of English prose. Especially two Latinate words in one sentence. Or three. Or four. Sakes! how they clog the writing. It drags along under its polysyllabic carapace. Hateful. I hate it.
And the Latin creeps in! It sneaks in. I have read of Daniel Webster (eminent senator and orator) faithfully going over his own writings, excising the Latinate words (where he decently could) and sticking in their Anglo-Saxon equivalents.
He went over President Harrison's inaugural address. "And I killed seventeen Roman pro-consuls," he remarked. "Dead as smelts, every one of them."
That always makes me laugh.
And hey! That about the Velveeta. As a child, I would ferret the stuff out of the refrigerator and cut a slice. A little snack you understand.
Ugh! Can't believe I ever did that. Eventually I grew up.
Thanks again, Mr. Stephens.
5
And the French, Susan. I realize that French is just Latin in satin and lace, but it is even more incomprehensible and impossibly unpronounceable. Latin at least had rules (I took two years of it in high school. It fulfilled the foreign language requirement for graduation.), but French? A decade or two back there was comedian who went by her marital status and married name: Mrs. Hughes. She said that in France, she is introduced as Madam ______, with silence coming from her open mouth, because all the letters of her name are silent in French.
2
Ms. Fitzwater, feel free to borrow my French-Latin dictionary from the joys of school days, and when the Normans changed mutton into mouton, and beef into boeuf (There have been a few wars between a Nation of fish and chip eaters and another famous for its bouillabaise.
On returning from Europe in adolescence, Velveeta was a delight and the discovery of Wonder Bread, another success, but then I decided not to grow up when I was sixteen, and life has been a bitter sweet adventure ever since.
Pax.
On returning from Europe in adolescence, Velveeta was a delight and the discovery of Wonder Bread, another success, but then I decided not to grow up when I was sixteen, and life has been a bitter sweet adventure ever since.
Pax.
1
"Editors notice..." so, we're not talking about any newspaper within eyeshot of midtown are we?
"Always offer the other side’s strongest case, not the straw man." (henceforth, without bodyguards, mr stephens, should stay away from the op-ed bullpen at 620 8th avenue).
"Delete useless or weasel words such as “apparently,” “understandable” and "likely" and "probably," especially in those declaratives
that purport to tell us the "truth" about subjects treated with the latest go-to op-ed tactics, ad hominum attacks and ad baculum appeals. note: that there is no caution against, or mention of, any of the baskets of logical fallacies (google them) perpetrated in the op-eds of such grand press icons as the NYT and WAPO (an acronym, btw, worth a look in these sensitive times).
"Kill the clichés..." and the labels let loose by the lazy without depth of grasp or offer of ontology "repulsive in themselves, and indicative of the mental slop that lies beneath." (in re "slop" see also op-eds not "backed by rigorously marshaled evidence, in the service of a persuasive argument."
"Authority matters...either...expertise in their field or unique experience of a subject. If you can offer neither on a given topic you should not write about it." put that one up on the wall next to david leonhardt's so-far unheeded challenge to grow habits and grasp through "grapples" with the unfamiliar.
and now, fellow ideal readers/ordinary subscribers"
let us review and grade the past week's op-eds.
"Always offer the other side’s strongest case, not the straw man." (henceforth, without bodyguards, mr stephens, should stay away from the op-ed bullpen at 620 8th avenue).
"Delete useless or weasel words such as “apparently,” “understandable” and "likely" and "probably," especially in those declaratives
that purport to tell us the "truth" about subjects treated with the latest go-to op-ed tactics, ad hominum attacks and ad baculum appeals. note: that there is no caution against, or mention of, any of the baskets of logical fallacies (google them) perpetrated in the op-eds of such grand press icons as the NYT and WAPO (an acronym, btw, worth a look in these sensitive times).
"Kill the clichés..." and the labels let loose by the lazy without depth of grasp or offer of ontology "repulsive in themselves, and indicative of the mental slop that lies beneath." (in re "slop" see also op-eds not "backed by rigorously marshaled evidence, in the service of a persuasive argument."
"Authority matters...either...expertise in their field or unique experience of a subject. If you can offer neither on a given topic you should not write about it." put that one up on the wall next to david leonhardt's so-far unheeded challenge to grow habits and grasp through "grapples" with the unfamiliar.
and now, fellow ideal readers/ordinary subscribers"
let us review and grade the past week's op-eds.
1
writers should pick up Strunk and White's Elements of Style.
e
e
6
Excellent reminder, Anne. Currently packed away in a box somewhere as I wait out the construction of my new home in a rental unit, I have carried Strunk & White with me for over 40 years.
3
Thank you for the tips and well written.
I agree that the best pieces are the shortest ones.
I agree that the best pieces are the shortest ones.
3
I was lucky enough to have my obituary of late uncle Cyril Kieft published in The Times. I will always relish the phone call I had with the Obituaries editor. It took me back to my English lessons at school, as he advised me of the half dozen minor amendments that he made.
1
Thank you for this Mr Stephens.
When I was at York College CUNY ( when CUNY was free for ALL New Yorker's), as a sophomore I took a philosophy class with Dr Robert Hoffman. Previously my assignments were something on the order of , "write a TEN page paper on....." and so I wrote a three page paper ( or less ) and filled the rest with repetition and nonsense. Sometimes I was rewarded ( with a high grade) and sometimes caught as a fraud, but never chastised for writing too much. Dr Hoffman on the other hand gave our first assignment as 'write a paper 25 LINES or LESS! " I still recall the topic, it was a quote " it is a strange desire to seek power and lose liberty" discuss.
I fretted over this paper, how is it even possible to this assignment? Bottom line, I learned. I took many classes from Dr Hoffman , and all his assignments were the 25 line rule. Though I eventually mastered the ability to get A's in his class, I never really acquired the skill ( as witnessed in this comment) to continue on. BUT! I did learn to read that way. Because of that I appreciate Mr Stephens writing even when , as often is the case, I dont agree with his argument. Mr Stephens, writes his columns exactly as he outlines today. One may disagree with his premise, or his conclusion, but one better be well able to argue against it with reason. For this reason i appreciate his columns more than the op-ed writers I actually agree with in this paper.
Ironically I was of course verbose here!
When I was at York College CUNY ( when CUNY was free for ALL New Yorker's), as a sophomore I took a philosophy class with Dr Robert Hoffman. Previously my assignments were something on the order of , "write a TEN page paper on....." and so I wrote a three page paper ( or less ) and filled the rest with repetition and nonsense. Sometimes I was rewarded ( with a high grade) and sometimes caught as a fraud, but never chastised for writing too much. Dr Hoffman on the other hand gave our first assignment as 'write a paper 25 LINES or LESS! " I still recall the topic, it was a quote " it is a strange desire to seek power and lose liberty" discuss.
I fretted over this paper, how is it even possible to this assignment? Bottom line, I learned. I took many classes from Dr Hoffman , and all his assignments were the 25 line rule. Though I eventually mastered the ability to get A's in his class, I never really acquired the skill ( as witnessed in this comment) to continue on. BUT! I did learn to read that way. Because of that I appreciate Mr Stephens writing even when , as often is the case, I dont agree with his argument. Mr Stephens, writes his columns exactly as he outlines today. One may disagree with his premise, or his conclusion, but one better be well able to argue against it with reason. For this reason i appreciate his columns more than the op-ed writers I actually agree with in this paper.
Ironically I was of course verbose here!
3
This should be required reading for every college student. I would have used it as the only "manual" when teaching Freshman Comp and Argumentative Writing. It's brilliant.
4
LK is too easily impressed. There are many fine English writing guides which don't reflect Bret's awful political baggage.
1
Wish I had this kind of advise in college.
1
Bet you wish you had spellcheck, too !
JV
JV
2
Advice.
1
I am not a great writer but I have become a much better writer having written with No. 13. My college professors limited out papers to 5 pages and minded the margins and line spacing as well. We all discovered a 5 page paper is much more difficult than a 10 page one.
I credit the 1500 character limit here for making me a still better one.
Thank you NYT.
I credit the 1500 character limit here for making me a still better one.
Thank you NYT.
3
I see one comma splice and several spelling errors. I have not yet conquered reading the computer screen as well as hard copy. The words and letters seem to hop around. Any suggestions welcome.
A spell check would be greatly appreciated, however, why some common words still come up as incorrect although I've checked them confuses as well.
A spell check would be greatly appreciated, however, why some common words still come up as incorrect although I've checked them confuses as well.
2
Sorry Mr. Stephens.
The editor is always the editor, but the editor isn't always right.
For instance, Bits now does their weekly recap on Friday morning. Friday night's news about hurricanes, pardons and subpoenas would have been missed.
Also, The Times app update for iPads allows for reading comments, but not entering them - that requires going to a computer.
Have I mentioned that the editor is always the editor, but the editor isn't always right?
The editor is always the editor, but the editor isn't always right.
For instance, Bits now does their weekly recap on Friday morning. Friday night's news about hurricanes, pardons and subpoenas would have been missed.
Also, The Times app update for iPads allows for reading comments, but not entering them - that requires going to a computer.
Have I mentioned that the editor is always the editor, but the editor isn't always right?
I am reading these comments on my iPad and there is a square with pen in the upper right corner of the column of comments. Click it and a screen pops up for entering a comment, just as it does for replying to one.
missed it, thank you. Could be the aging of my iPad.
make that. . .
the aging of the iPad, or the iPad's user.
the aging of the iPad, or the iPad's user.
Has anyone sent this memo to Mr. Brooks?
9
Another tip: avoid pretentious tips using Greek, pseudo-internationalizations, and overbearing pontifications.
But thanks for reminding the reader that "the purpose of an op-ed is to offer an opinion."
The sun also rises.
But thanks for reminding the reader that "the purpose of an op-ed is to offer an opinion."
The sun also rises.
2
I might print this out and fold it up put it in my Strunk & White.
Decades later a piece of my high-school English teacher's advice is always with me, on everything I write. "Never start a sentence with "I think." If you're writing it, I know it's what you think, you don't need to tell me that." One is forced to make sentences that are declarative and have a point.
Um, was the use of "oleaginous" intended to be ironic? Because it's in a paragraph about writing to an audience of normal intelligence and I'm an engineer for a well-known national space agency and I'll admit I had to look it up. So if it was irony, it was effective, if it wasn't, well then, perhaps I've overestimated my vocabulary.
Decades later a piece of my high-school English teacher's advice is always with me, on everything I write. "Never start a sentence with "I think." If you're writing it, I know it's what you think, you don't need to tell me that." One is forced to make sentences that are declarative and have a point.
Um, was the use of "oleaginous" intended to be ironic? Because it's in a paragraph about writing to an audience of normal intelligence and I'm an engineer for a well-known national space agency and I'll admit I had to look it up. So if it was irony, it was effective, if it wasn't, well then, perhaps I've overestimated my vocabulary.
60
Us normal folks look up words all the time. It's not rocket science.
1
Oleaginous is a quite popular word in the NYT Op-ed pages.
M. Dowd used it 3/6/16 to describe Trump. D. Brooks used it 3/8/16 to describe Cruz. R. Cohen used it 1/27/17 to describe Trump. R. Cohen used it again on 8/1/17 in an article about the departure of Mooch to describe the WH staff in general. I would swear F. Bruni has used it in the last six months as well. I am thankful I studied Latin, and whether intentional or not, the usage patterns alone do indeed make the word's inclusion here ironic. With this article, Bret Stephens is now a NYT Op-Ed writer!
Thanks, I will share this with my students.
M. Dowd used it 3/6/16 to describe Trump. D. Brooks used it 3/8/16 to describe Cruz. R. Cohen used it 1/27/17 to describe Trump. R. Cohen used it again on 8/1/17 in an article about the departure of Mooch to describe the WH staff in general. I would swear F. Bruni has used it in the last six months as well. I am thankful I studied Latin, and whether intentional or not, the usage patterns alone do indeed make the word's inclusion here ironic. With this article, Bret Stephens is now a NYT Op-Ed writer!
Thanks, I will share this with my students.
1
So says the newest GOP apologist at the Times.
4
Love the Velveeta analogy. Writing like that makes it worth slogging through the opinion part.
1
I'd add, don't omit salient pieces of history in order to advance your argument. Some op-ed writers do that from time to time, though I'll not mention one in particular who comes to mind.
8
The column was informative, but the comments were even more so.
5
Mr. Stephens,
I look forward to sharing your column with my students.
I look forward to sharing your column with my students.
2
Columnists get 700 words, commenters get 1500 characters. If you can't get to the point fast, you don't have space to get to the point at all.
I rarely come to agreement with Mr. Stephens; we come to our opinions from different directions, and we have different outlooks on how to foresee the future if only our opinions were fact.
But Brett Stephens does make his point clear, and his reasoning is clear, and the basis for his opinion clear. As long as the person writing keeps it honest - doesn't cherry pick fact, or misuse statistics, or create a whole from an anecdote, or all of the other fallacious ways of trying to present opinion as truth - I am fine with it.
I will respect a point of view that is not mine, as long as the writer doesn't cheat. I will respect a point of view that is mine as long as the writer doesn't cheat. A good op-ed columnist produces opinion, not propaganda.
I rarely come to agreement with Mr. Stephens; we come to our opinions from different directions, and we have different outlooks on how to foresee the future if only our opinions were fact.
But Brett Stephens does make his point clear, and his reasoning is clear, and the basis for his opinion clear. As long as the person writing keeps it honest - doesn't cherry pick fact, or misuse statistics, or create a whole from an anecdote, or all of the other fallacious ways of trying to present opinion as truth - I am fine with it.
I will respect a point of view that is not mine, as long as the writer doesn't cheat. I will respect a point of view that is mine as long as the writer doesn't cheat. A good op-ed columnist produces opinion, not propaganda.
6
So... you couldn't think of anything to write about today?
127
I found it useful, much of it useful for writing almost anything.
2
Maybe he needed a break from biblical catastrophes: our president and other massive storms?
2
He did; useful and insightful as ever.
1
Tip for avoiding pompous generalizations disguised as wisdom.
Just say no.
Just say no.
2
Good advice for all writers and just in time for school. However, I think corporate writers are the worst. The authors are always writing with their next job in mind. Orthodoxy to the company line is a must and cliches abound. We were always told to " take a deep dive into the data" and "think outside the box" as we sought to "shift the paradigm" to improve profitability.
Speaking of one handedness, Ravel wrote a piano concerto for the left hand because it was commissioned by Paul Witgenstein who lost his right hand in WW!.
1
I quite enjoy coming across a word that is new to me. One of my favorites is eleemosynary.
6
In 2013, I came across an old article written in 2004 by the then NYTimes Op-Ed editor David Shipley titled "And Now a Word From Op-Ed." I followed his advice and in February of 2013, my Op-Ed essay (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/02/opinion/global/a-nigerian-spring-long-... appeared in the NYTimes and immediately followed by another essay in May of 2013 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/opinion/global/mamas-gift-of-freedom.h....
Now, after reading this article by Bret, I am already determined to follow his advice and see what happens. I already have a topic....so look out world.
Now, after reading this article by Bret, I am already determined to follow his advice and see what happens. I already have a topic....so look out world.
2
Re: "The editor is always right."
Yes, though "always" is dangerous.
T. E. Lawrence noted that his editor complained that Lawrence had spelled an Arab name a number of different ways. From my memory, Lawrence replied "Ingenious. And he is a fine fellow."
Yes, though "always" is dangerous.
T. E. Lawrence noted that his editor complained that Lawrence had spelled an Arab name a number of different ways. From my memory, Lawrence replied "Ingenious. And he is a fine fellow."
4
How many Op-Ed pieces by Hemingway were published in the NYTimes?
It is said that from reading Flaubert he learned the use of proleptic images. Nice word Mr. Stephens. Here's another rule. Never use a word that must be defined for the average reader.
It is said that from reading Flaubert he learned the use of proleptic images. Nice word Mr. Stephens. Here's another rule. Never use a word that must be defined for the average reader.
3
But if one's writing does not extend the average reader's mind, one condemns the average reader to unmitigated mediocrity. (At dictionary.com, I verified that I understood "oleaginous", and I learned "proleptic", thereby becoming less mediocre.)
3
We all know the big words. Small(er) words are not mediocre. Effective communication of an idea to the average reader is not mediocre. Elevation of analysis - extension of the average reader's mind, to borrow your phrase - is more easily accomplished by effective communication. I don't take umbrage re your reply.
This is easier said than done. Bloggers are handicapped by that 1500 character limitation imposed on them by the NY Times. Sometimes there is a definite need for us aspiring OP ED writers to go beyond the 1500 character cut off. By comparison Bret Stephens can go on and on to elaborate his point complete with examples and embellishing it with his personal observations because he is an OP ED columnist.
Has Mr Stephens bothered reading the comments? A majority of the comments are biased mean spirited attacks on other bloggers. (Trust me I've taken my share of lumps over the years) Oh and let's add insult to injury -- there is a special category of blogger called a "verified commenter" who has a green box and checkmark next to his or her name. These commenters are free to post anything they want without being scrutinized by a moderator first. The verified commenter can publish any racist, bigoted thought he or she wants with impunity.
This unfair practice has got to go -- I call it comment apartheid.
Has Mr Stephens bothered reading the comments? A majority of the comments are biased mean spirited attacks on other bloggers. (Trust me I've taken my share of lumps over the years) Oh and let's add insult to injury -- there is a special category of blogger called a "verified commenter" who has a green box and checkmark next to his or her name. These commenters are free to post anything they want without being scrutinized by a moderator first. The verified commenter can publish any racist, bigoted thought he or she wants with impunity.
This unfair practice has got to go -- I call it comment apartheid.
4
"The verified commenter can publish any racist, bigoted thought he or she wants with impunity."
This isn't true. Comments can be, and are, taken down if they violate any of the Times's rules for posting, which include the above. This applies to all comments.
This isn't true. Comments can be, and are, taken down if they violate any of the Times's rules for posting, which include the above. This applies to all comments.
1
Fortunately Stephens column is not about reader comments. Its application is probably limited to the Letters to the Editor level and beyond that to unsolicited op-ed contributions, i.e., those subject to editorial review.
1
was not aware of such monitoring - but have learned over years NYTimes readers are the toughest going and to get past the reactions is a mighty assignment. Mr. Stephens is now with us not only in print but constantly on T.V. and so quickly after arriving as an Op-Ed specialist (if there is such a thing). He'll have to hang near the beloved David Brooks and the keen and sharp tongued Maureen Dowd and I'm guessing bumping into them all in multiple locations. Sapphire, a few times, took us with him up and down the halls of writer's offices . . . I often imagine what they say to each other; fun at the moment with Stephens rising. He is compelling with his quick grounded questions and summaries, seems to blend well while challenging wrongs. A welcome new stance in subject matter. Now if he oould just write Trump out of office, please?
I'd like to play the devil's advocate here and show how ineffective op-eds are and how much more effective other modern means of communication can be. Let's establish a ground rule: we assume an op-ed succeeds if it changes some minds. So to say op-eds all are ineffective and some other more modern means of communication are much more effective, I would have to give an example of op-ed failure and new communication vehicle success. Ready?
Tons of op-eds display how Trump is a demagogue. But I confess he still is effective at captivating me and, indeed, the TV carries his rallies and other routinely because people stay tuned. Do they not? So the op-eds, given they are designed to displace the mindset that is susceptible to his techniques have failed. This accepted, what is a more modern form of communication that could really succeed in dislodging this demagogue for good, or for a while at least?
Make a link to an actor using the same techniques in a ridiculous way. This paradigm does have a model. Consider the movie the Blair Witch Project, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Hw4bAUj8A; the opening of this trailer gives an actress who was so convincing people thought it was real. She later made a spoof that showed the same techniques: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YASj8IuQ_Yw. The effect was to permanently convince people that it was really just a totally fictional movie.
Trump could be dislodged with an academic and an actor using demagogic techniques quick.
Tons of op-eds display how Trump is a demagogue. But I confess he still is effective at captivating me and, indeed, the TV carries his rallies and other routinely because people stay tuned. Do they not? So the op-eds, given they are designed to displace the mindset that is susceptible to his techniques have failed. This accepted, what is a more modern form of communication that could really succeed in dislodging this demagogue for good, or for a while at least?
Make a link to an actor using the same techniques in a ridiculous way. This paradigm does have a model. Consider the movie the Blair Witch Project, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Hw4bAUj8A; the opening of this trailer gives an actress who was so convincing people thought it was real. She later made a spoof that showed the same techniques: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YASj8IuQ_Yw. The effect was to permanently convince people that it was really just a totally fictional movie.
Trump could be dislodged with an academic and an actor using demagogic techniques quick.
2
"But I confess he still is effective at captivating me ..."
This tells us more about you than the quality of any op-ed piece.
This tells us more about you than the quality of any op-ed piece.
I'd rather ponder a bunch of true facts presented by a crummy writer than read fancy prose from some someone who doesn't understand their subject. Climate change, for instance.
8
Advice from E. B. White
"Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all sentences short or avoid all detail and treat subjects only by outline, but that every word tell."
☛ The preceding paragraph is from William Strunk, Jr. & E. B. White, The Elements of Style, fourth edition (Allyn & Bacon, 2000), pgs. xv-xvi.
White wrote (pg. xvi) of the foregoing paragraph: “There you have a short, valuable essay on the nature and beauty of brevity--fifty-nine words that could change the world.”
"Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all sentences short or avoid all detail and treat subjects only by outline, but that every word tell."
☛ The preceding paragraph is from William Strunk, Jr. & E. B. White, The Elements of Style, fourth edition (Allyn & Bacon, 2000), pgs. xv-xvi.
White wrote (pg. xvi) of the foregoing paragraph: “There you have a short, valuable essay on the nature and beauty of brevity--fifty-nine words that could change the world.”
28
Thanks Bret. Good to expand readers' vocabulary too. 'oleaginous' is a new word of the day for me. I have yet to read an entire column without encountering a word I had to look up.
2
So what? As if it's hard to throw a rare word in, when a simpler word is just as effective.
Good stuff, widely applicable.
1
It's important to add that there are professional marketing agents who shop the op-eds of their clients around to the editors of newspapers and other outlets. You're much more likely to get published if you have one of these insiders working on your behalf.
Whenever you read an op-ed whose author is described as the author of a "forthcoming book", please realize that it's not just a coincidence. That author had an agent who shopped that op-ed around as part of a marketing strategy for the book.
This isn't wrong. But I'd like to see the NYT describe this side of the process, because in reality it's VERY hard to get into the NYT without these marketers.
Whenever you read an op-ed whose author is described as the author of a "forthcoming book", please realize that it's not just a coincidence. That author had an agent who shopped that op-ed around as part of a marketing strategy for the book.
This isn't wrong. But I'd like to see the NYT describe this side of the process, because in reality it's VERY hard to get into the NYT without these marketers.
8
I think Mr. Stephens left out one of the most important points or maybe that omission was purposeful given the record of his own op-eds: Make sure your piece has the Ring of Truth. The Ring of Truth is more than just a sound quality. Like a physical ring, it connotes integrity and completeness. Like a wedding band, it signifies obligation and promise. Like a ring of children holding hands, it has a number of links and is only as strong as the weakest grip. Like the ring of the telephone, it alerts us. And like a circus ring or lifesaver, it affords safety by giving the reader something to grasp.
4
"A columnist is a generalist, often with an idiosyncratic style, who performs for his readers."
Bret, great phrase and great distinction. It helped me to realize that the reason I don't like some columnists is not because they are necessarily poor writers, it is because I don't always enjoy going to their circus.
Bret, great phrase and great distinction. It helped me to realize that the reason I don't like some columnists is not because they are necessarily poor writers, it is because I don't always enjoy going to their circus.
14
"The editor is always right." Well, not always. I recall one who changed my "the event occurs each year on the first Saturday of August and preceding Friday" to "the first Friday and Saturday." The following year the event was scheduled for July 31 and August 1.
Also, there remain editors who are unaware that "effect" can be used as a verb.
Also, there remain editors who are unaware that "effect" can be used as a verb.
5
" there remain editors who are unaware that "effect" can be used as a verb."
Please, a high school student knows this. Your exaggeration ruins your credibility.
Please, a high school student knows this. Your exaggeration ruins your credibility.
1
As one who taught high school English for many years, I would say the exaggeration is with your contention. However, I will amend my statement to say that while editors may know that "effect" can be employed as a verb, some fail to recognize when it has been properly used and so incorrectly make a change.
If you find an Op-Ed writer who can write elegantly what you can only feel; who can articulate what you have been trying to say, then that is what makes a great Op-Ed writer for you.
4
Not necessarily. I probably appreciate the ones i learn something new from even more.
1
Items 3 and 8 are in direct contradiction to one another.
I'm glad you brought that up. The two rules contradict each other only on the surface. The distinction is this:
#3 says you, yourself, must have only one opinion and you must fight for it.
"Chocolate is the best flavor ever." adheres to rule #3.
"Chocolate is the best flavor ever, but vanilla is really attractive too." fails rule #3.
#8 says that you must be aware of opposing arguments and explain why they are wrong. You still have to stick with your own, one opinion.
"Chocolate is the best flavor ever. Some people like vanilla, but they're wrong because vanilla is boring." adheres to rule #8 AND rule #3. Take particular note of the word "because", which is an essential of rule #8.
#3 says you, yourself, must have only one opinion and you must fight for it.
"Chocolate is the best flavor ever." adheres to rule #3.
"Chocolate is the best flavor ever, but vanilla is really attractive too." fails rule #3.
#8 says that you must be aware of opposing arguments and explain why they are wrong. You still have to stick with your own, one opinion.
"Chocolate is the best flavor ever. Some people like vanilla, but they're wrong because vanilla is boring." adheres to rule #8 AND rule #3. Take particular note of the word "because", which is an essential of rule #8.
1
Bret always contradicts himself, if you read him carefully. Any column will do. It's a game to C.Y.A.
This way he can deny that he apologizes for Trump.
This way he can deny that he apologizes for Trump.
2
As someone who wrote sermons for 15 years, I can relate to several of those - especially knowing your audience and edit, edit, edit (tightening it up). Fine prose which is 'over the head' of the average reader or listener is useless, no matter how information packed and well crafted. In editing, one also is forced to whittle the content down to what is necessary. In the process the writer is forced to remove the assortment of interesting facts which he/she may be tempted to add, but which do not necessarily enhance understanding of the central point.
3
PS--Love the part about Velveeta!
2
Hate the part about Velveeta :(
2
As a teacher, I have written many applications for grants and awards---and have gotten most them. I tell my friends at school that if they want win a grant or an award they have to give each sentence a unique job to perform within the application essay. No other sentence should try to do that unique job--no staffing redundancies! Maybe that is true of editorials as well.
7
Ahhh the joys of pitching a paragraph in the comment section. I'll keep my day job and keep pitching--- and thank you NYTimes for encouraging me and other. Too much fun.
11
Before writing, distinguish between opinion and prejudice, facts and propaganda; and greet your readers with peace, as friends especially those whom you hope to persuade.
7
"distinguish between opinion and prejudice, facts and propaganda..."
How? Many people label "opinion" as "prejudice" if they merely disagree, and many people call "facts" propaganda ,if a fact contradicts a belief.
So explain HOW to avoid this. My guess is that you are one of the many I describe. You might even scream "fake news" too.
How? Many people label "opinion" as "prejudice" if they merely disagree, and many people call "facts" propaganda ,if a fact contradicts a belief.
So explain HOW to avoid this. My guess is that you are one of the many I describe. You might even scream "fake news" too.
I have lots of thoughts. Some are reasoned, some simply inherited through repetition and peer pressure. Before you write, you need to distinguish between the two. No one can tell you how, it is a facet of wisdom, but when you recognize the need you are halfway there.
I notice that most comments to this excellent article are, mercifully, brief. Respondents are obviously taking the expert advice given therein.
2
Tips for writing well?
I have known only psychological emergency with respect to the word. One rule: Form an idea as clear as possible. Everything subordinate to clarity, to assembling an idea as clear as a piece of mathematics. Ironically I know little math...But I proceed as if math or music, worrying little about plagiarism and having deep suspicion of editors. Editors...Tell me, in what field other than writing do editors have such sway over accomplishment? Is the mathematician plagued by editors? The musician? The scientist? How really is an editor to keep up with an exceptional writer?
I find a writer is more likely than not to be made sick by education, society, rules of writing, editors. I'm trying to imagine a mathematician having half his work cut out, or his most favorite lines excised because "the editor knows best". I am trying to imagine the mathematician plagued by censorship, plagiarism accusations, every and another rule which seems invented just to make you unsure, to rob you of confidence, to make you think that after all, it's just not worth the bother...
I would go so far as to say a person has to be mentally ill (whether actually so or considered by society), with nothing left to lose, to finally arrive at the simple conception of writing along lines of just constantly trying to form a clear thought and to say it no matter the consequences to self and society. I will have writing like there is math, music, like a bird has every right to the sky.
I have known only psychological emergency with respect to the word. One rule: Form an idea as clear as possible. Everything subordinate to clarity, to assembling an idea as clear as a piece of mathematics. Ironically I know little math...But I proceed as if math or music, worrying little about plagiarism and having deep suspicion of editors. Editors...Tell me, in what field other than writing do editors have such sway over accomplishment? Is the mathematician plagued by editors? The musician? The scientist? How really is an editor to keep up with an exceptional writer?
I find a writer is more likely than not to be made sick by education, society, rules of writing, editors. I'm trying to imagine a mathematician having half his work cut out, or his most favorite lines excised because "the editor knows best". I am trying to imagine the mathematician plagued by censorship, plagiarism accusations, every and another rule which seems invented just to make you unsure, to rob you of confidence, to make you think that after all, it's just not worth the bother...
I would go so far as to say a person has to be mentally ill (whether actually so or considered by society), with nothing left to lose, to finally arrive at the simple conception of writing along lines of just constantly trying to form a clear thought and to say it no matter the consequences to self and society. I will have writing like there is math, music, like a bird has every right to the sky.
3
I'm sorry, but may we have that again? This time with clarity.
>>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“What a glut of books! Who can read them?”
Robert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy
This applies to Op-Eds as well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“What a glut of books! Who can read them?”
Robert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy
This applies to Op-Eds as well.
Seems to me that the following statement is backwards. 6) An op-ed should never be written in the style of a newspaper column. A columnist is a generalist, often with an idiosyncratic style, who performs for his readers. An op-ed contributor is a specialist who seeks only to inform them.
You'll never get a job at Fox News or the Trump administration following these rules.
14
If you have read Bret's apologies, equivocations, and word games, then you couldn't be more wrong.
2
I just finished writing a book (not my first). Whenever I think I am done with a book I give it to my editor who does some major editing which helps with accuracy and clarity. Even commas matter quite a bit--just because you understand what you wrote doesn't mean others will. I'd suggest that this piece isn't so much about writing as it is about editing. The advice about cutting is especially useful but it requires letting a piece sit for a while so that you can return to it with fresh eyes. I remember John Kenneth Galbraith writing that he would go through 6 drafts before getting something right. So writing op-eds should be less of an impulsive thing and more of a sustained hobby. Write every day, but also understand the need to leave time to edit. If you're rich hire a personal editor (ha!).
2
Read every word of this. And, would add: Finish with a tidy flourish that wraps up the argument in a short and memorable line.
1
Thanks for the insight
1
Nary a word on content.
That is Bret.
And no strawmen?
Oh my goodness. Where would that leave the Times 'conservative' columnists? Up a creek.
That is Bret.
And no strawmen?
Oh my goodness. Where would that leave the Times 'conservative' columnists? Up a creek.
14
Nice, but next time could you please say it in 7.5 paragraphs?
6
Please! Some one drop this op-ed on Trump's desk. It applies to political speeches as much as to newspaper pieces.
3
15 reasons why I read the op-eds rather than try to write them. Letters to the editor will have to suffice.
3
Avoid misleading and deceptive conduct when writing about climate science.
74
Thank you Mr Stephens, very useful!
2
Naw. Mr. Stephens' advice is good, solid stuff, but after years of closely reading op-eds in the Times and elsewhere, it's clear to me that most don't meet Stephens' strictures and that the op-ed writer must be a second cousin of the Times' style page editor or be some similar relation or arrangement. Is it any wonder that the voice I hear on NPR today is associated with the name I saw on an op-ed last week and on top of an Atlantic article last month? Ever read an op-ed from someone living in a small New Mexico town? No second cousins there.
7
"Ever read an op-ed from someone living in a small New Mexico town?"
I've read many op-eds from small towns across America. Your question suggests paranoia. Get rid of that giant chip on your shoulder.
I've read many op-eds from small towns across America. Your question suggests paranoia. Get rid of that giant chip on your shoulder.
1
Bret Stephens, thank you for new tips and for reminding us of those we already practice. Now could you please give us Tips for Aspiring Comment Writers.
I turn from that request to your no. 11, modified so it applies to comment writers and even New York Times Editors.
"Before writing a comment you should know when the paper last covered a subject that the OpEd/Editorial writer that you believe is essential to the OpEd."
And then? If the paper has not mentioned that subject should you OpEd novice or comment writer not waste your time bringing that up? I offer one example, the USCB system for assigning us to races and ethnicities.
The Times is filled with articles said to be about Race so one might think that the USCB system for assigning us to races ´would at least be mentioned. The Times Editors think differently. The last and only time the system was mentioned was in an OpEd by Kenneth Prewitt, former USCB Director, in 2013 arguing that the system should be transformed to one that no longer assigns us to these categories.
Another leading scholar in that field whom I know submitted OpEds for several years. All were rejected. So I submit comments every week on this. What I learn from replies and from Race/Related Newsletter is that almost nobody can imagine even discussing the subject.
Conclusion: If the Times never mentions the subject, do not even think of writing an OpEd.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
I turn from that request to your no. 11, modified so it applies to comment writers and even New York Times Editors.
"Before writing a comment you should know when the paper last covered a subject that the OpEd/Editorial writer that you believe is essential to the OpEd."
And then? If the paper has not mentioned that subject should you OpEd novice or comment writer not waste your time bringing that up? I offer one example, the USCB system for assigning us to races and ethnicities.
The Times is filled with articles said to be about Race so one might think that the USCB system for assigning us to races ´would at least be mentioned. The Times Editors think differently. The last and only time the system was mentioned was in an OpEd by Kenneth Prewitt, former USCB Director, in 2013 arguing that the system should be transformed to one that no longer assigns us to these categories.
Another leading scholar in that field whom I know submitted OpEds for several years. All were rejected. So I submit comments every week on this. What I learn from replies and from Race/Related Newsletter is that almost nobody can imagine even discussing the subject.
Conclusion: If the Times never mentions the subject, do not even think of writing an OpEd.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
3
Ah yes, a clear thesis, backed by rigorously marshaled evidence, in the service of a persuasive argument. And then we have the argument against climate change: rigorously disregarded evidence, in the service of a discredited contrarian trope.
89
And don't forget - it must be carefully curated with due diligence
Mr.Stephens, no matter how well it's written, the most important part of writing is what you have to say, not how you say it.
Unfortunately, your op-eds in this paper so far were not helped by good writing. It's your ideas that need to be re-examined, not your writing skills
Unfortunately, your op-eds in this paper so far were not helped by good writing. It's your ideas that need to be re-examined, not your writing skills
5
The easiest job in the world has to be an op-ed writer for the NYT. They are the most hate filled people. All they have to write is how much they HATE Trump and the comments in agreement pour in. Cash paycheck. Repeat. Done.
4
I believe what you perceive as hate and money-grubbing is primarily fear--fear for the assault on our democratic institutions represented by a man who claimed he would abide by the results of an election he called "rigged" unless he was declared the loser, who enriches himself through his office of President in violation of the emoluments clause in the Constitution, appoints to the head of federal agencies men dedicated to destroying them. and tries to discredit the power of the judiciary every time a judge rules against one of his edicts.
1
Did you follow your own advice with this op-ed?
3
This is excellent advice, not only for op-ed author wannabes but also for people who comment on the writings of others in the NYT. 1,500 words is not a lot, but is too much for some people.
The best two statements about the essence and process of writing I've ever encountered were from E. B. White and William Zinsser found here: http://reasonandmeaning.com/2014/12/12/how-to-write-well/
1
Patrick O'Brian's last novel was published incomplete, along with draft pages, including his corrections.
His writing looks to have been all corrections. It was very impressive. His writing seems so easy and natural, yet it is all the product of this massive re-write.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Final_Unfinished_Voyage_of_Jack_Aubrey
I gave this book to my son, when he was was struggling with the concept of re-write and the need to work at his writing.
His writing looks to have been all corrections. It was very impressive. His writing seems so easy and natural, yet it is all the product of this massive re-write.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Final_Unfinished_Voyage_of_Jack_Aubrey
I gave this book to my son, when he was was struggling with the concept of re-write and the need to work at his writing.
Thanks Bret! I'm framing the analysis of a sociology article, and this advice is timely.
I especially take your advice to heart because I'm a die-hard leftist who nonetheless finds himself anticipating your columns and perspective.
I especially take your advice to heart because I'm a die-hard leftist who nonetheless finds himself anticipating your columns and perspective.
1
A good piece of writing grabs one by the private parts ( metaphorically speaking ) and doesn't let go until the point is made. What that point may be depends on the conviction of the writer to let the reader in on some truth.
In these halcyon days of slinging insults, mayhem and the obligatory charge of fake, one needs to cut through and hold us captive.
For a brief moment you did. Bravo.
In these halcyon days of slinging insults, mayhem and the obligatory charge of fake, one needs to cut through and hold us captive.
For a brief moment you did. Bravo.
6
The most important part: authority matters. Something that Trump misses as he criticizes the media.
1
Thank you Mr. Stephens, this is great advice not just for Op-Ed writers but all writers. I see echoes of Strunk and White and William Zinnser in it. Well done!
This was interesting, and even useful. A nice distraction.
But, how does it relate to climate change???
But, how does it relate to climate change???
4
Agreed.
William Faulkner said it better (shorter): "Kill your darlings." (Alternative: "Kill your babies.")
William Faulkner said it better (shorter): "Kill your darlings." (Alternative: "Kill your babies.")
3
What a generous column, thanks. I can't write for a hill of beans, so won't be submitting any op-eds myself in this lifetime. Gives me a smile though, to imagine some of your collegues realizing they may have to up their game a bit. I can't even read some of them anymore, that element of surprise is long gone.
1
Curious what is the pay rate for published editorials.
Is it standard across all disciplines, or do you pay more for "names"?
Thanks for answering! Also, if one writes with an authoritative tone and clearly in mastery of the subject material, is the explanation of credentials and official experience or expertise sufficient to describe in a sentence or two as the footnote. (I'm not plugging a book, I promise!)
Is it standard across all disciplines, or do you pay more for "names"?
Thanks for answering! Also, if one writes with an authoritative tone and clearly in mastery of the subject material, is the explanation of credentials and official experience or expertise sufficient to describe in a sentence or two as the footnote. (I'm not plugging a book, I promise!)
3
I thank you Bret for sharing your wisdom. I have to confess I tend to belabor a thought or opinion to the point of desolving it. I printed your piece, pinned it to my bulletin board and will end this comment now.
1
Having had an Op-Ed published in the NYT I can only assume I observed the prescribed rules and parameters:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/17/opinion/17iht-edvarzi.1.7155838.html?m...
Unfortunately, the NYT Op-Eds largely tend to regurgitate half-truths and follow established political lines. They tend to describe effects rather than causes. I have observed very few groundbreaking or courageous opinion pieces that expose, for example, the roots of Radical Islam or the precise financial relationships between the Saudis, the Kuwaitis and U.S. presidential dynasties. Apparently, cans of worms cannot be opened for fear of revealing the ugliest aspects of U.S. foreign policy.
Another of my beefs, relating to the Op-Eds, is the manner in which 'verified commenters' are selected. I would have imagined that tens of thousands of 'recommends', approx. 50 'NYT Picks' and the fact that I am one of the few readers not hiding behind anonymity would have caused me to be 'verified'. But I shall continue commenting, 'verified' or not!
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/17/opinion/17iht-edvarzi.1.7155838.html?m...
Unfortunately, the NYT Op-Eds largely tend to regurgitate half-truths and follow established political lines. They tend to describe effects rather than causes. I have observed very few groundbreaking or courageous opinion pieces that expose, for example, the roots of Radical Islam or the precise financial relationships between the Saudis, the Kuwaitis and U.S. presidential dynasties. Apparently, cans of worms cannot be opened for fear of revealing the ugliest aspects of U.S. foreign policy.
Another of my beefs, relating to the Op-Eds, is the manner in which 'verified commenters' are selected. I would have imagined that tens of thousands of 'recommends', approx. 50 'NYT Picks' and the fact that I am one of the few readers not hiding behind anonymity would have caused me to be 'verified'. But I shall continue commenting, 'verified' or not!
3
"I have observed very few groundbreaking or courageous opinion pieces"
Do you suppose they are not submitted, or just not accepted?
Do you suppose they are not submitted, or just not accepted?
As an aspiring Op-Ed wirter, I've already saved this column for future reference. Is it impertinent to ask, does this column pass muster with respect to item 3 ? Oh yes, thank you and keep up the good work.
1
#16. Keep it short.
1
These are great tips that the op-ed writer himself, fails to follow. Perhaps the challenge of meeting deadlines collides with trying to find new material stumps the best. In any event- advise is far easier to met out than follow. As a NYT reader almost 40 years, there is less and less great writing in the once esteemed Opinion pages. One should not have to look for the proverbial "Diamond in the rough". A great subject in the hands of a poor word smith; a misleading title or a subject handled poorly is a waste of space and a real waste of the reader's time: Bad impressions are almost impossible to change. In the spaces of the NYT Opinion pages- far too much latitude is given to individuals who are not writers. (There are Commenters who do a far better job than those paid) Far too often when you get to the bottom to read about the writer- they are academics working on a new book or someone who has selected a piece from their Doctoral work. That is what a Peer-Review journal is for. I am critical because I expect the best from the NYT.
3
One of my highest literary achievements was to get a letter published in the NYT. Before you start to congratulate me, I should tell you it was a pro-Trump letter submitted in early 2016. The editors were probably surprised that knuckle-dragging Trumpian could spell correctly, and, you know, they needed something for target practice...
3
On a day that saw:
1. Category 4 Hurricane Harvey barreling into Texas,
2. President Trump make a very controversial pardon of convicted Sheriff Arpaio,
3. White House adviser Sebastian Gorka resign,
4. Special counsel Mueller issue fresh subpoenas in the Russia investigation, and
5. North Korea launch three more short range missiles;
Mr. Stephens apparently still believed it was a slow news day and decided to provide some wonderful tips to readers on how they can try to take his job? That’s chutzpah, Mr. Stephens. So thanks for the advice, I’ll remember it in my next submission to the NYT Op-Ed page.
1. Category 4 Hurricane Harvey barreling into Texas,
2. President Trump make a very controversial pardon of convicted Sheriff Arpaio,
3. White House adviser Sebastian Gorka resign,
4. Special counsel Mueller issue fresh subpoenas in the Russia investigation, and
5. North Korea launch three more short range missiles;
Mr. Stephens apparently still believed it was a slow news day and decided to provide some wonderful tips to readers on how they can try to take his job? That’s chutzpah, Mr. Stephens. So thanks for the advice, I’ll remember it in my next submission to the NYT Op-Ed page.
16
For this, he left the WSJ? Nothing happening worth writing about today?
2
Im just a plain vanilla ordinary former working stiff but I'll bet ya I could write a 700 word op-ed that would just blow the socks off the ordinary subscriber.
Subject line. Failing Trump Fails Again
Trouble though is, so couldn't 65 million other ordinary folks who voted for HRC.
Excellent article, great advice. Will stick with being ordinary subscriber though, more fun polking jabs at the op-ed writers!
Subject line. Failing Trump Fails Again
Trouble though is, so couldn't 65 million other ordinary folks who voted for HRC.
Excellent article, great advice. Will stick with being ordinary subscriber though, more fun polking jabs at the op-ed writers!
1
Hey, Bret, why do you pick this rather unimportant topic to write about tonight, of all possible topics, as multiple, crucial events are affecting our nation, and as a NYT op ed columnist for the paper of record? Just curious. I don't think your column adds much of value.
4
You want every op ed to be well below the middle of a Bell curve in IQ.. That way it allows for the largest readership, and celebrates mediocrity.
3
That entirely misunderstands the shape of a Bell Curve, the meaning of first standard deviation, and the limits of IQ measurement.
Aim at the middle, and you get 5/6 of the audience right or better.
Aim at the middle, and you get 5/6 of the audience right or better.
yes: fact-checked crisp writing; inescapable logic; an opinion worth expressing; served up with a dash of wit or humor, according to taste ... a la Gail Collins or Frank Bruni ... the morning diet, with brew of choice...
1
Advice from accomplished writers is always welcome, especially when pithy. No one wants to hear, "If you find writing easy, you're doing it wrong," but it's the writer's job to communicate truth, however unwelcome. Thank you Mr. Stephens, for sweating the small stuff.
38
Ah, but you have to have the talent too.
I was about 13 when I first got addicted to H.L. Mencken. Mrs. Rossi -- a very pretty blonde lady teacher who I was infatuated with -- assigned my class to write an essay on Lord Byron. So I went to the library and assembled a pile of books on Lord Byron. They bored me. So I started looking around for something better to read. There was an open copy of one of Mencken’s books on the
library table next to me. I picked it up and began reading it. It made me laugh, and I have been reading Mencken ever since.
But that is not the end of my story. Next day, I asked Mrs. Rossi if I could do my essay on Mencken instead of Lord Byron, and she said just this once I could.
I got an A+ from her on the essay. And that is why I still love Mrs. Rossi.
I was about 13 when I first got addicted to H.L. Mencken. Mrs. Rossi -- a very pretty blonde lady teacher who I was infatuated with -- assigned my class to write an essay on Lord Byron. So I went to the library and assembled a pile of books on Lord Byron. They bored me. So I started looking around for something better to read. There was an open copy of one of Mencken’s books on the
library table next to me. I picked it up and began reading it. It made me laugh, and I have been reading Mencken ever since.
But that is not the end of my story. Next day, I asked Mrs. Rossi if I could do my essay on Mencken instead of Lord Byron, and she said just this once I could.
I got an A+ from her on the essay. And that is why I still love Mrs. Rossi.
151
Maybe Stephens forgot the most obvious point: Write about things you have a passionate interest in.
2
I read Mr. Brooks 'cause I rarely agree with him; I read Mr. Krugman 'cause I almost always do. Neither tells me much I don't already know; both tell me something I want to, though. I may not think much about them through most of the day but it's great to pause with them along the way. And if they should give me cause to comment in turn, they have then given reason to stop listen and learn. So Mr. Stephens you have written us well; we have read your piece and it sure was swell.
91
Thanks, Bret Stephens - great tips for writing 'with thrift'.
Above all, express opinions that the NYT approves of.
6
Please get to the point
3
16) no crayon. 17) would it kill you to type out the words are, see and you instead of R, C and U? 18) keep your love life to yourself, thank you. 19)Bengahzi is played out unless you're submitting to Breitbart. 20) be content with the comment section.
17
To add an editing tip, follow Strunk's adage: "omit needless words"! When you find your idea, its expression in a muddle, cut vigorously! Hit backspace. (Chances are better than even, if you let your eye connect across the muddle you will find in the word placement a new alignment--cut!) Let the words find their places.
4
Bad puns (like the run-on sentence above) rarely work. Revise, let the words find their place!
3
And op-ed writers of the NYTIMES are never wrong, so that's the job
to strive for. Readers are referred to the Nov. 8, 2016 where almost every
op-ed editor in the world was wrong in guessing Trump would lose. After reading an op-ed article, I find some of the readers' comments are more rational
and incisive than the original piece. Having followed Bret Stephens since his days at the WSJ, he is balanced and thorough, compared to some of
his unnamed colleagues
to strive for. Readers are referred to the Nov. 8, 2016 where almost every
op-ed editor in the world was wrong in guessing Trump would lose. After reading an op-ed article, I find some of the readers' comments are more rational
and incisive than the original piece. Having followed Bret Stephens since his days at the WSJ, he is balanced and thorough, compared to some of
his unnamed colleagues
2
"The ideal reader of an op-ed is the ordinary subscriber — a person of normal intelligence who will be happy to learn something from you, provided he can readily understand what you’re saying."
In other words, do not insult the reader or his/her intelligence. Treat them with respect due anyone who has, not just intelligence, but also honesty, integrity and fairness.
If you buy my argument this far, it also suggests that an op-ed writer must address issues that are germane to many, not just the ultra rich or the elites. It is important to focus on topics that are pertinent to a large swath and not just the upper crust. And, it also means that even though the "purpose of an op-ed is to offer an opinion" it will have to be an honest opinion; posturing and pandering can be and will be easily seen through.
In other words, do not insult the reader or his/her intelligence. Treat them with respect due anyone who has, not just intelligence, but also honesty, integrity and fairness.
If you buy my argument this far, it also suggests that an op-ed writer must address issues that are germane to many, not just the ultra rich or the elites. It is important to focus on topics that are pertinent to a large swath and not just the upper crust. And, it also means that even though the "purpose of an op-ed is to offer an opinion" it will have to be an honest opinion; posturing and pandering can be and will be easily seen through.
5
The wanna-be in me is grateful.
Thank you, Bret.
Thank you, Bret.
1
Avoid the passive voice. Amen.
... and Amen to Bret Stephens's other precepts and suggestions - they're valid for writing articles, essays and books. And yes, writing isn't easy. Recommendation: Harold Evans's new book "Do I make myself clear?"
Now if Stephens could use that internalized 'white out" on HRC's name, he would be even more convincing.
... and Amen to Bret Stephens's other precepts and suggestions - they're valid for writing articles, essays and books. And yes, writing isn't easy. Recommendation: Harold Evans's new book "Do I make myself clear?"
Now if Stephens could use that internalized 'white out" on HRC's name, he would be even more convincing.
I think I will pass on this advice to my colleagues who teach English - they can give their pupils those pointers to help them organize good talks as well as presentations. No matter which area of text production you want to use, this advice is indispensible. Thanks in the name of my senior high students.
Thank you. I have plenty of luck, I just need good management.
Very instructional, Mr Stevens, and most of this advice would serve anyone aspiring to formulate their opinions in a manner worthy of an op-ed writer.
National discourse would certainly improve with improved discipline of individuals.
As a commenter, poster, hack, or whatever professional writers call us, my instinct on opinion is the truth kernal, the take-it-or-leave-it hard sell, and a slam-dunk for the owner of grace or over the owner of malfeasance.
The reality predator that currently dominates all commentary goes, to an unacceptable extent, unchecked. So, man's nature is to "check" the falsehoods as they demand to be "checked".
Is there any real argument from professional writers that a "vehement" response is in order for the outrage of our Free Press being called "Fake News"?
The Free Press doesn't necessarily have to agree with unsolicited help (sic). In summation: The King of the Pirates may sail all waters, but he will hear "vehement" response at every bell.
National discourse would certainly improve with improved discipline of individuals.
As a commenter, poster, hack, or whatever professional writers call us, my instinct on opinion is the truth kernal, the take-it-or-leave-it hard sell, and a slam-dunk for the owner of grace or over the owner of malfeasance.
The reality predator that currently dominates all commentary goes, to an unacceptable extent, unchecked. So, man's nature is to "check" the falsehoods as they demand to be "checked".
Is there any real argument from professional writers that a "vehement" response is in order for the outrage of our Free Press being called "Fake News"?
The Free Press doesn't necessarily have to agree with unsolicited help (sic). In summation: The King of the Pirates may sail all waters, but he will hear "vehement" response at every bell.
This seems to me good advice not only for OpEds but for writing in general and perhaps for living as well, and I loved the juicy near alliteration: "oleaginous adjective".
Kill the cliches: indeed.
Meanwhile, [cliche removed] here is a perfect OpEd that some may not have noticed, "A Whisper in an Age of Shouting": https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/opinion/charles-stover-playgrounds-wh...
No wonder Bret Stephens won a Pulitzer. Now, I hope he will go study some more about climate change and solutions, and be more skeptical about Bjorn Lomborg's self-dealing and wishful thinking. When he is writing on other subjects he uses his razor sharp eye for language and presents true conservative thought well. On science, he seems to select what he wants to be true rather than facing the unimaginable tragedies towards which we hurtle. I know it's tough, but burking issues never turns out well in the long run.
Kill the cliches: indeed.
Meanwhile, [cliche removed] here is a perfect OpEd that some may not have noticed, "A Whisper in an Age of Shouting": https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/opinion/charles-stover-playgrounds-wh...
No wonder Bret Stephens won a Pulitzer. Now, I hope he will go study some more about climate change and solutions, and be more skeptical about Bjorn Lomborg's self-dealing and wishful thinking. When he is writing on other subjects he uses his razor sharp eye for language and presents true conservative thought well. On science, he seems to select what he wants to be true rather than facing the unimaginable tragedies towards which we hurtle. I know it's tough, but burking issues never turns out well in the long run.
94
"A Whisper in an Age of Shouting" (link above): "Ariella Rosen is a rising senior at the High School of American Studies at Lehman College."
3
Susan I read the article , "A Whisper in an Age of Shouting" and I thank you. It is so well written and Ms. Rosen kept me engaged from the first to the last word. With many stories and/or articles I read I find myself skipping over too many adjectives, too much redundancy, etc.
She also touched me emotionally so much so, I printed the story!
Thanks again and I am not surprised Ms. Rosen is a "rising senior".
She also touched me emotionally so much so, I printed the story!
Thanks again and I am not surprised Ms. Rosen is a "rising senior".
2
Thank you so much for the link, "A Whisper in an Age of Shouting" is marvelous. I know so many people who are whispering who will never be publicly celebrated for their wisdom and kindness, nor would they wish to be.
It's the whispers that change the world. The shouting that comes from public discourse is merely reactive.
It's the whispers that change the world. The shouting that comes from public discourse is merely reactive.
2
The mention in item 3 of the necessity of op-eds to be "backed by rigorously marshaled evidence" and the subsequent Truman quip about economists prompt me to ask op-ed writers to think twice before assuming they have a can opener.
2
I have been a tenured professor fort 30 years, with a high rate of acceptance of articles and have had eight books published. I also have been a professional journal editor as well as an editor-in-chief for a scientific series of books.
Yet, I fail miserably in getting Op-Eds published. My background is in the sciences and public policy; in theory I agree with Bret's recommendations but find them difficult to master. In science, content matters and often there is little knowledge that readers of a science-based Op-Ed possess. Thus, there is a tension between Bret's suggestions and others about what a science-based Op-Ed should be. There are many scientists who have written excellent Op-Eds, but many others have yet to translate his suggestions into practice.
I used to mentor junior faculty on how to begin the process of coming up with ideas and translate them so that they could be published. Although this might be trite, I usually would simply state that most aspiring writers should learn about writing by simply reading–profusely.
Professional writing is, for me, easy. I can be more succinct when writing for professional journals or books because I can assume that readers will have sufficient for knowledge of the basics of the issue.
But when writing for popular outlets with, say, a 1200 word minimum the problems become more difficult because most scientists have trouble overcoming feeling that such a limit is too limiting.
Yet, I fail miserably in getting Op-Eds published. My background is in the sciences and public policy; in theory I agree with Bret's recommendations but find them difficult to master. In science, content matters and often there is little knowledge that readers of a science-based Op-Ed possess. Thus, there is a tension between Bret's suggestions and others about what a science-based Op-Ed should be. There are many scientists who have written excellent Op-Eds, but many others have yet to translate his suggestions into practice.
I used to mentor junior faculty on how to begin the process of coming up with ideas and translate them so that they could be published. Although this might be trite, I usually would simply state that most aspiring writers should learn about writing by simply reading–profusely.
Professional writing is, for me, easy. I can be more succinct when writing for professional journals or books because I can assume that readers will have sufficient for knowledge of the basics of the issue.
But when writing for popular outlets with, say, a 1200 word minimum the problems become more difficult because most scientists have trouble overcoming feeling that such a limit is too limiting.
11
Don't try to say it all. Say less, and say it well.
Abraham Lincoln mastered that as a lawyer. He would choose a key point to contest, something he could win, and let the rest go. He won a lot doing that. His later speeches reflect his focus.
Abraham Lincoln mastered that as a lawyer. He would choose a key point to contest, something he could win, and let the rest go. He won a lot doing that. His later speeches reflect his focus.
I can't count the number of times I thought I would like to write and OP Ed here, but how to say it, how to convey it has escaped me.
I make many comments here, and even have a small following. I was given the verified commentator status a few years ago as i tried to stick to the facts, but they were not OP Ed type posts, just the dry facts which I learned over the years. I did very well in school writing research papers, but who wants to read them, except someone who is interested in "Size Tuned Mechanisms in the Occipital Cortex?"
Of course we all have our own opinions, and it is easy to see we like to express them here. I followed you in the WSJ and had a short thesis to send to you, regarding what I considered contradictory, particularly your support of GOP economics. I still have a copy of your UCLA address stored on this machine, you say one thing, but write another.
I am a member of the Renaissance Society Cal State University Sacramento and taking a seminar on writing and publishing this semester.. We have great seminars, I learned how to write my name in cuneiform last semester, but doubt many readers want to know about that.
As you said writing is hard work. Just writing here, I compose, check for grammatical errors, then read back what i wrote to see if it sounds right. So even a simple comment like this takes several minutes. Problem is I know a little bit about a lot of things, but that is not Op Ed material. Maybe soon though, but who will publish it?
I make many comments here, and even have a small following. I was given the verified commentator status a few years ago as i tried to stick to the facts, but they were not OP Ed type posts, just the dry facts which I learned over the years. I did very well in school writing research papers, but who wants to read them, except someone who is interested in "Size Tuned Mechanisms in the Occipital Cortex?"
Of course we all have our own opinions, and it is easy to see we like to express them here. I followed you in the WSJ and had a short thesis to send to you, regarding what I considered contradictory, particularly your support of GOP economics. I still have a copy of your UCLA address stored on this machine, you say one thing, but write another.
I am a member of the Renaissance Society Cal State University Sacramento and taking a seminar on writing and publishing this semester.. We have great seminars, I learned how to write my name in cuneiform last semester, but doubt many readers want to know about that.
As you said writing is hard work. Just writing here, I compose, check for grammatical errors, then read back what i wrote to see if it sounds right. So even a simple comment like this takes several minutes. Problem is I know a little bit about a lot of things, but that is not Op Ed material. Maybe soon though, but who will publish it?
12
C- Your thesis is a rambling ode to self and neatly manages to waste the reader's time all the way to the very last sentence.
4
Unnecessary roughness!
Thanks for this. I like lists.
One thought crosses my mind as I read this.
Know the rules, and know when to break them.
One thought crosses my mind as I read this.
Know the rules, and know when to break them.
23
Probably most of the commenters here think, "I could do this!" I know I do.
And I did, once. My opportunity came after I wrote a letter to the editor that prompted the paper to contact me with a request to expand my observations on being stuck in Houston in a five-hour traffic jam in the same week a major corporation announced plans to relocate its New Orleans operations to that snarl of traffic as a "more attractive" option. It was an exhilerating challenge, not easy to write, but I ended up shoulder-to-shoulder with Leonard PItts on the Op Ed page.
As Virginia Reader recommends here, I came to it with one opinion and did not stray. I cited as much supporting evidence as I could. Maybe someday I will be able to bring another unique experience or insight that transcends letters-to-the-editor or posts in comment sections, but until then I sit in awe of the professional columnists who do this *every week*.
And I did, once. My opportunity came after I wrote a letter to the editor that prompted the paper to contact me with a request to expand my observations on being stuck in Houston in a five-hour traffic jam in the same week a major corporation announced plans to relocate its New Orleans operations to that snarl of traffic as a "more attractive" option. It was an exhilerating challenge, not easy to write, but I ended up shoulder-to-shoulder with Leonard PItts on the Op Ed page.
As Virginia Reader recommends here, I came to it with one opinion and did not stray. I cited as much supporting evidence as I could. Maybe someday I will be able to bring another unique experience or insight that transcends letters-to-the-editor or posts in comment sections, but until then I sit in awe of the professional columnists who do this *every week*.
47
This piece beautifully exemplifies the Times' slogan, "Good writing is good thinking."
27
As a businessman and manager I once asked people to approach their emails to me like newspaper reporting. Try to put as complex a subject as you may want to communicate in a heading--and then again in the first 60 words, not as an introduction but as a complete summary. In that process you will have to discern the possible courses of action pertaining the subject matter. If you are not clear why you are writing, don't write. Don't try to leave the punchline for the end after you have gradually persuaded me of something--because I won't get to the end or I'll resent it. Trust me right at the start with what you want. Then explain.
12
It's been said that the formula for a successful speech or instruction has three elements: tell them what you're going to tell them; then tell them; and then tell them what you told them.
2
General George Marshal had a similar rule in WW2 -- if a briefer could not explain something in five minutes, he could not explain it, and had to go back and do it over again (if lucky). He got five minutes, that's it.
Perhaps the Zeroeth Tip:
Have something worth saying.
Have something worth saying.
206
amen to that!
That is the oldest advice to writers, and still the best starting place.
This is extraordinarily good advice, and something worth rereading almost every time you start to write. I've published well over 100 op-eds in this and other papers, and I learned a good bit.
I will offer one more tip: you can only make one strong point, or offer one opinion or tell one story in an op-ed. Don't try to stretch for two. The form doesn't allow it.
I will offer one more tip: you can only make one strong point, or offer one opinion or tell one story in an op-ed. Don't try to stretch for two. The form doesn't allow it.
135
@ Virginia reader (anonymous) 100 OpEds but you cannot tell us who you are. If you are so successful, surely you can reveal who you are so we can learn by reading your OpEds starting with those in the Times.
Only-Never in Sweden.Blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
Only-Never in Sweden.Blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
4
Larry -- To be fair, some people are constrained by the needs of work or social life to offer opinions anonymously. I indulge because I can. Not everyone can.
1
If one could be a successful columnist by following 15-point advice columns, there'd be a lot more good columns.
Nowhere do you mention content. So I'd add this:
Argue for something that promotes human welfare, not something that comforts the rich and afflicts the poor and powerless.
Nowhere do you mention content. So I'd add this:
Argue for something that promotes human welfare, not something that comforts the rich and afflicts the poor and powerless.
252
Many would-be Op-Eds begin very well, but for some reason become too emotional, so that the reader is turned off by them. I've seen a few like that, so I would add this point: Express how you feel about a matter, but refrain from overdoing it.
H, you left out (1) actually being hands-on in change rather than just huffing/puffing and (2) mercy on the working middle class. You're welcome.
I would add to write in the interest of who and what cannot write to speak for themselves, for instance, the environment, R&D, improvement of cities and farmland.
4
Mr. Stephens, what you've written here is great to keep in mind when merely READING Op-Ed pieces; I'll never write one but I can use this as a reference as to what to look for. Thank you.
32
It's timely advice. Some day fairly soon, there will be four kinds of people in the world: politicians (including lawyers who, like cockroaches, will survive nuclear Armageddon and still be found skittering about in their millions), those who design arcane software sufficiently complex that other software can't yet do it, a vast horde of bloggers and other writers seeking SOME attention (and even a few ducats), and the masses who have nothing to do all day but consume their rations of gruel and complain about Donald Trump, software designers and those who scribble.
So, tips are welcome for those who scribble, whether anyone bothers to read them or not.
Bret offers very good advice, but he should be aware that he's now in trouble with educational unions for replacing entire creative writing courses with one column consisting of 15 "tips". And being in trouble with unions in THIS paper is quite different from the same state in the WSJ.
So, tips are welcome for those who scribble, whether anyone bothers to read them or not.
Bret offers very good advice, but he should be aware that he's now in trouble with educational unions for replacing entire creative writing courses with one column consisting of 15 "tips". And being in trouble with unions in THIS paper is quite different from the same state in the WSJ.
8
Richard you obviously didn't avail yourself of any of the tips
17
There will actually be five kinds of people left. You forgot those right-wing neanderthals who ruined the world with their greed and idiocy.
10
16). Avoid hyperbole, the tendency toward contrivance, and sentences that run for a full paragraph.
25
I don't often agree with you, Bret Stephens, but your comments are spot on and apply to more than the op-ed page. Any person who writes to argue or compel would be wise to follow your advice.
48
Writing comments is difficult enough. Writing an op-ed piece is like trying to explain why you're for Trans-Species bathrooms at public zoos. No thanks.
I wrote a novel ten years ago. My effort lasted two years. I did complete it and had the book published. I learned one important lesson- all writing was re-writing!
I wrote a novel ten years ago. My effort lasted two years. I did complete it and had the book published. I learned one important lesson- all writing was re-writing!
36
Thanks for the time to offer advice. Points well taken.
19