Busting 14 Common Myths about Op-Eds
Op-Eds just became more valuable in the era of AI search. Here are the 14 most common misconceptions we see when working with CEOs and scientific leaders on Op-Ed strategy — and on building a broader executive thought leadership strategy grounded in strategic science communication.
Myth 1: There's the legacy news media, and then there's social media.
This is the mental model we often see executives working with: legacy media on one side, social media on the other. Within that, reporting and opinion get collapsed into a single category — "the news media" — when the news media itself splits into reporting and opinion/editorial, and these two worlds operate by different rules, involve different players, and present fundamentally different opportunities for executive thought leadership.
Most of the frustrations executives associate with the news media — being misquoted, losing control of the narrative, watching a full interview collapse into a soundbite — apply to reporting, not to the opinion media. For any executive who wants to establish themselves as a thought leader within their field or industry, the opinion media provides the most powerful avenue — and the Op-Ed article is the vehicle.
But when they see all of the news media as one thing, they don’t even think about Op-Eds, and default to social media as the place for thought leadership. Even many PR agencies are steering clients toward social media, treating it as the default channel for thought leadership — while leaving a vastly more powerful opportunity on the table.
Myth 2: I have to be well known to publish an Op-Ed.
Truth: People with no public profile publish op-eds every day, including in the most influential media outlets. For example, this powerful Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, authored by Dr. Brent Beasley, a retired physician from Kansas City.
Myth 3: I can write in the same tone or style as academic or business writing.
Truth: Op-Ed style and tone is distinct. It's clear. It's active. It's accessible. Every word pulls its weight. Using scientific jargon, business-speak, technical phrases, even clichéd language is a surefire way to see an Op-Ed rejected.
Myth 4: Being well known makes it easier to get published.
Truth: Fame counts for nothing if you have nothing to say. Oftentimes the most well-known leaders guard what they say because they know people are watching. They play defense. They have PR teams who hand them their talking points, which are bland and totally forgettable. Op-Eds are for leaders with points of view that are bold, novel and timely.
Myth 5: Op-Eds are a dying medium.
Truth: Op-Eds are one of the most influential, high-impact forms of media you can communicate through. Especially for executives and experts who don't already have huge social media followings, and can't wait for the years of consistent effort it takes to build one. The best thought leadership or opinion media strategy combines high-level Op-Ed publishing with social media.
Myth 6: Writing an Op-Ed is a PR exercise. A published Op-Ed is a "media hit."
Truth: Unlike scientific public relations, which often manages perception reactively, a published Op-Ed is a proactive strategic asset. It functions as a key that opens many doors. A badge that confers credibility. Because Op-Eds showcase a unique point of view, packaged in a way that's engaging and easily ingested, they differentiate you as a relevant, bold thinker more quickly than any other medium. Op-Eds are even more powerful now in the age of AI search, where Google Gemini, Claude, ChatGPT and other LLMs interpret people who publish op-eds as leaders in their field or industry–and the novel ideas and clear, succinct writing are naturally engineered for LLMs to understand. Op-Eds are among the fastest ways to execute a CEO positioning strategy — differentiating you as a bold, relevant thinker.
Myth 7: Op-Eds are too hard to write.
Truth: I hear this a lot, including from PR agencies. Op-Eds are actually simple to write. Not easy, but simple. There are formulas. Consider the sonnet. Sonnets have rules and conventions that make a poem a sonnet: 14 lines, a specific cadence. Op-eds are the sonnets of mass media. They follow rules and conventions. Know what they are, and your odds of successfully publishing an Op-Ed improve dramatically. (We have an e-Book, Mastering Op-Eds, all about this.)
Myth 8: I need to have relationships with media outlets to publish an Op-Ed.
Truth: No reputable editor accepts articles solely from people they know. Many are actively looking for more voices to publish, and specifically people with science backgrounds. Some outlets even bar submissions from PR agents; they want to hear straight from the person whose name is on the article. And if you submit good articles, it's easy to build a relationship with an Op-Ed editor. We work with clients to pitch Op-Eds to editors without a pre-existing relationship all the time, and we regularly get the same message after they've published our submission: Send me more!
Myth 9: Op-Eds need to be polished before pitching them for publication.
Truth: I used to think this, and I'd spend a lot of time polishing up drafts before pitching them. I still do this when I know the article we're writing isn't extremely timely, so we're making up for that with the sheer strength of the writing. But every opinion editor I know says that when an Op-Ed is responding to breaking news, they would rather receive a rough draft submitted the same day, which they can quickly edit and publish, versus getting a highly polished article days later.
Myth 10: I can plug my brand or products in an op-ed.
Truth: Overtly self-promotional Op-Eds are dead on arrival. There are legitimate ways to discuss your brand or product in an Op-Ed, but it has to be a legitimate part of your core argument–not what you've done, or what you've produced, but what you've experienced and other people can learn from.
Myth 11: I can say whatever I want.
Truth: That's what social media is for. Opinion media is for your most urgent, bold, novel, unconventional, refined thinking.
Myth 12: I can write Op-Eds by committee.
This is one of the most common failure points in institutional thought leadership strategy. The truth is, writing committees are where Op-Eds go to die. The more people working on the article, the more it becomes impersonal, corporatized, bland, and harder to publish. Writing by committee is more common in corporate environments, where even legal has to review. Fortunately, there are ways to protect the viability of the article, by making sure everyone knows the conventions we have to follow, by enforcing hard lines that keep corporate boilerplate out, and by negotiating edits that preserve the author's personal voice.
Myth 13: I can fully delegate Op-Ed writing–to an agency, comms staff, or AI.
Truth: CEOs and other executives often outsource their social media posts. But they have to be involved in the op-ed process, because their thinking and their personal experience is vital to the article. This is becoming even more true with AI, where any writing that's impersonal and sounds generic will sound like AI could have written it and will be rejected by Op-Ed editors on sight.
Myth 14: "If I build it, they will come."
Truth: Op-Eds can, and sometimes do, catalyze action on their own. But the news cycle is manic and changes from morning to afternoon. Every day, all new Op-Eds. Even op-eds published in very high profile outlets can be forgotten quickly. The key is to view publication as a starting point, not the end. It's like the crack of the starting pistol. You make a lot happen, even with a single op-ed. Develop a practice of writing Op-Eds, and you can shift a field, industry, or even country. But you have to put the op-ed to work after it's published–something conventional PR agencies aren't equipped to do.
*Bonus* We don’t see this with executives, but we do see this with researchers:
Myth: Writing an op-ed will make me seem like an advocate, not a scientific leader.
Truth: An Op-Ed shows that you're a leader with a valuable perspective. Op-Eds are among the very best mediums for communicating insights. Unlike traditional reporting, where you rely on a journalist to quote you–and what you say gets reduced to soundbytes–op-eds are articles you author yourself. You get a full page and half to lay out an argument, with evidence, nuance and personal observation–using your research. And unlike social media, op-eds demand that you communicate a rational, articulate point of view. And they allow you to present your own research. There's a difference between science policy advocacy — which is legitimate and influential — and losing your credibility as a scientist. Op-Eds let you do the former without sacrificing the latter.
