SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO WRITE, ANALYZE, AND/OR EVALUATE AN OP ED COLUMN
SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO WRITE, ANALYZE, AND/OR EVALUATE AN OP ED COLUMN
By
Ken Eliasberg
While it’s all well and good to pass off one’s literary efforts as “just my opinion,” other than a self-effacing gesture intended to ennoble its author, it really doesn’t tell you much. In fact, it tells you nothing. I am reminded of a statement by one of my favorite liberals, Patrick Moynaghan on the significance to be attached to “opinions.” Moynaghan made this observation: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but none his own facts.” And that goes to the heart of what an opinion column is all about and what infuses it with validity and credibility — FACTS!! In addition, matters such as logic, common sense, a clear and relevant connection to reality are essential, and these are the things that have been conspicuous in their absence in the columns offered up in this paper by our resident left-winger in his efforts to share his “wisdom, wit, and literary skills” (in the hyperbolic words of his successor), all of which escaped me in wading through his misconceptions of reality. So let’s take a look at what should enter into the care and feeding of an “opinion” column.
Facts.- Facts are everything; after all, we’re not talking about science fiction here. No one cares about what a particular author thinks if he offers no facts that clearly and convincingly support his opinion (unfortunately, we have become so polarized and close-minded, that most don’t care even when such supportive material is offered up). And we’re talking here about “relevant” facts, not just any fact that the writer wants to throw in.We’re talking about those facts that bear materially — either favorably or unfavorably, depending on the author’s perspective — on the point under consideration. The point here is not to flood the field; the point is to illuminate the field — we’re trying to clarify not to confuse. Granted, we are trying to influence and, hopefully, persuade, but the best way to do either is to provide sufficient clarity and supportive material to at least point the reader in the right direction. We are not trying to make up his (or her) mind for him; we are merely trying to help him in this endeavor. That said, I am amazed at how often facts are either, as noted, conspicuous in their absence, have absolutely no bearing on the argument being made, or, on the rare occasion when the left-wing author deigns to mention them, are either misunderstood and/or completely distorted. Now I realize that different people may draw different conclusions from the same set of facts, and that’s fine. There’s a big difference between how 2 people address and interpret the same set of facts and not stating facts at all.
When you go into a court of law, the judge is not interested in what the attorney’s opinion is; he is interested in what evidence the attorney has to support that opinion. By the same token, when you enter the court of public opinion, come in with substantiating facts and figures. Don’t come in with a lot of hot air and some sentimental dribble and insult the audience’s intelligence by asking it to accept your opinion on faith. A teacher with a captive audience can make that sought of demand on his students. Similarly, a preacher can demand acceptance on faith. An author cannot take those liberties — not if he expects to gather a following.
Logic.- It is not just important to state the facts; it is equally important to align them and analyze them in a fairly logical way, a way that allows a reader to follow your line of thinking. In the study of logic this is called a syllogism — a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion which follows therefrom. In other words this is not a shotgun blast, where you have to figure out which pellet, if any, did the damage. This is a well aimed shot at a specific target, one in which the reader is free to disagree with your conclusion, but one in which he will, at the very least, have no trouble following your line of reasoning.
Common Sense and Connection With Human Nature.- Some times things seem intellectually precise, but, nonetheless, don’t seem to make any sense. In that case place some reliance on your gut; if it doesn’t make sense to you — i.e. leaves you with a feeling that something’s missing — give credence to your feelings and go back over the argument to make certain you didn’t miss anything. Our intellects may frequently mislead us, but our instincts rarely do. Also, there are authors who are “book” smart but not “street” smart. The Clintons are a perfect example: Hillary is book smart (although I sometimes wonder; one thing is clear, she has absolutely no judgement) but street stupid; she has a lead foot and a tin ear. Bill on the other hand is street smart. Hillary reads books; Bill reads people (and books). That is the principal reason for his political success. Trust your gut, but not to the exclusion of careful analysis.
Connection With Reality.- By connection with reality I mean only that it is helpful if the author can demonstrate that he has some awareness — no matter how slight, fleeting, or shallow — of what’s going on in the world. That is, what he is saying has some connection to the real world, and it is in that context that his arguments are being advanced.
The second point — human nature (which the left almost always overlooks in their quest to create an earthly Utopia, i.e. heaven on earth) is self-explanatory and follows closely on the heels of common sense. We’re talking about people, not fairy tales, so it is not just appropriate, but essential, that you dip into your reservoir of human experience — after all, you didn’t just fall off a turnip truck yesterday afternoon.
In short, a column (and, hopefully, a letter in response thereto) is first and foremost an effort at communication. If what we’re trying to establish is some connection with scholarship in our search for the truth, then what we want is evidence — you know, something that supports what we are saying — and, if you haven’t got that then, you’re right, it’s just an opinion, one in which the reader should place little, if any, stock.
After a proper evaluation of an op ed piece, is your journey over? Unless you have a closed mind, it’s just beginning. A good op ed piece should do little more than pique your curiosity and point you in the right direction. Never take any one’s word for it; do your own thinking — be your own man (or woman). As I have frequently cautioned my readers, don’t stop with what I have to say — check it out. On the other hand, if your mind is closed and you have no desire to grow — then don’t even bother to read it; if it favors your view, you’re content, and, if it doesn’t, what does that guy know any way?
Unfortunately, you rarely, if ever, get that sort of effort from a lefty (as you may have noticed over the past months). If our new left-wing contributor wants a “debate” on any subject — an entreaty that I enthusiastically welcome — then I suggest that he adhere to the approach recommended in this column — preaching and propagandizing do not constitute, nor are they calculated toproduce, “wisdom,” and they certainly don’t represent the scholarly pursuit of “truth.” And that’s not just my opinion, that’s the way it is — check it out!