How Do You Structure an Op-Ed for Major Media?

This is Part Three in a series for people in science on how to write, pitch, and publish op-ed articles. For earlier posts see:

Why Every Scientist Needs an Op-Ed Strategy

How Do I Write an Op-Ed That Will Get Published in Major Media?

Now comes the drafting. Here’s how you structure an op-ed to be published in major media.

The opening

While some media outlets publish longer articles, most will give you 600-800 words to make a clear, powerful argument. The technical term for the start of your Op-Ed is the “lede,” but just think of it as your opening. Your opening is exactly that: how you open your Op-Ed.

Your opening has two parts: your hook, and your thesis.

Your hook functions in two ways. First, it’s a rhetorical hook. It should grab your reader’s attention and make them want to keep reading. Second, it’s a news hook. In other words, it’s timely. You are writing an article about current events.

Some successful hooks for Op-Eds we have published include: “Tuberculosis is making a comeback.”

“On Tuesday, the Department of Health and Human Services published new policies on research misconduct…”

You can even use a historical hook, if you use it to set up a timely argument:

“In 1505, Poland’s parliament adopted a transformational piece of legislation. Translated as “Nothing new without the common consent,” the new law redistributed political power by forbidding the king from issuing decrees without first getting parliamentary approval. This same principle, streamlined to “Nothing about us without us,” has underpinned popular social movements of our time. It’s the defining position of the global disability rights movement. It’s a rallying cry for people living with HIV/AIDS. And it’s become a guiding ideal in global health.”

The thesis: This is the distillation of your argument–your point of view–written in a line or a few lines. We used that historical hook above to set up a thesis where we argued:

“To make global health truly participatory, the world’s health institutions must adopt a radical approach to listening to everyday people. Listening must become global health’s lynchpin.”

When I say your thesis is the distillation of your argument, I do mean your argument, singular. This is a cardinal rule of Op-Ed writing. One article, one argument. It may take you some time to clarify your thesis. That’s ok. Don’t go deep into writing an Op-Ed until you have distilled your thesis down into a few lines, because your thesis is your guide for the whole rest of the article. If you start writing without a clear thesis, you’re likely to go off in different directions, which breaks a cardinal rule of Op-Ed writing: One article, one argument.

Here’s the opening of an op-ed we published in The New York Times, on the same day our research team published a study on substandard and counterfeit TB medicines. You can see the hook and thesis working together:

“In the largest study of its kind, to be published today in the International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, colleagues and I have found that fake and poorly made antibiotics are being widely used to treat tuberculosis. These substandard drugs are almost certainly making the disease more resistant to drugs, posing a grave health threat to communities around the world.”

Making sure your opening has a hook and a thesis gives you an advantage when it comes time to pitch your op-ed.

This is a pro tip: Your thesis stays the same, but your hook can change. Your hook is modular. In practice, what this means is if you pitch your op-ed and no one is accepting it for publication, your news hook is likely to get stale the further out in time you get from it. If your news hook gets stale, you can look for a fresh news hook, swap the old hook for the new one, and pitch again and again–until you publish your op-ed.

As long as your thesis remains relevant, you can even start drafting an Op-Ed without a news hook, add the news hook when one presents itself, and then pitch your Op-Ed. That’s what I did with this Op-Ed, published in STAT. I had a draft Op-Ed in my files, making the argument that research misconduct is a product of perverse workplace incentives. That Op-Ed draft sat in my files for six months. When a new federal rule on research misconduct went into effect, I added that news hook, freshened up my stats, and pitched the Op-Ed.

That’s the exact pitching strategy our team uses, and it’s a big part of what’s helped us publish every health and science Op-Ed we have developed with clients over the last decade.

The body

Once you have your opening, then draft your full argument. You will do this by rhetorically  presenting evidence that supports your argument.

Op-eds feature evidence across a spectrum of sources: research data, expert opinion, personal experiences. They all have a place. People in science are used to citing data point after data point. Don’t do that. Curate the evidence you use to support your argument. Especially the personal side to your argument is what often takes a solid piece of writing to the next level, and resonates with readers, editors, and policy-makers alike. Humanizing an issue while instilling trust can connect more people to the work you are trying to highlight. And that’s the core reason to write an op-ed.

One rhetorical device that makes Op-Eds persuasive, fun to read, and intellectually rigorous, is that they often acknowledge a counter-argument. You often see a counter-argument introduced with a phrase like “To be sure…” before the Op-Ed author goes on to refute it.

See this counter-argument in the Op-Ed I wrote on research misconduct, for STAT:

“We must all be accountable for our behavior, and to be sure, some serial offenders have perpetrated shocking cases of scientific fraud. Enforcing research integrity, especially in medicine, public health, and the life sciences, is critical to preventing serious harms. But from a systems perspective, it’s easy to see how today’s research environment incentivizes the very misconduct institutions want to stop.”

The conclusion

In my experience, the conclusion is always the most challenging part of the Op-Ed to write. The aim here is not to simply restate your thesis. It’s to finish making the most persuasive argument you can, and then leave your reader on an emotionally powerful note–something that will have them thinking about the Op-Ed after they finished reading it. A strong op-ed lands with the reader understanding the issue you’re writing about  differently.

For example, see how I concluded my Op-Ed on research misconduct: “We’ll always need policies and tools to enforce research integrity. But as institutions start working to align their internal practices with HHS’s new rule, they should also remember their responsibility to create environments that enable researchers to be their best selves.”

Another way to conclude is by harkening back to your opening, bringing the Op-Ed full circle. See how we concluded our Op-Ed on radical listening in global health, after opening with a historical hook about the origins of “nothing about us without us”:

“At the time Poland’s Parliament wrested power from the king with its cry of “Nothing about us without us,” it was made up solely by men from the noble class. We’ve come a long way since then, but in most countries health authorities still occupy rarefied ground. While global health institutions, officials, and professionals are indispensable, we must broaden our perspective on who counts as an expert. Local communities have essential insights for addressing their health challenges. It’s time we listen.”

Know which format fits your argument 

There are a few different  forms an Op-Ed can take, and which one you pick depends on the sort of argument you’re making. These are the two most common types, and if you’re just getting started writing Op-Eds, you’ll likely want to start with one of these, because they’re the most straightforward:The critical Op-Ed goes deep into why something is a problem, or why something is wrong. These are often critical of a policy, or critical of the conventional wisdom surrounding an issue. It spends most of the time arguing for why something is wrong or why something is a problem, with a brief treatment of solutions near the end. The solutions Op-Ed goes deep into how to solve a problem or tackle an issue. Where the critical Op-Ed spends most of its time persuading readers that something is a problem, the solutions Op-Ed briefly establishes the problem at the start and then spends most of the article laying out how to solve it. Solutions Op-Eds are appropriate when the problem is already widely acknowledged, but there’s no consensus about what the solutions are yet.

Things to avoid

Now you know the do’s, here are three don’ts.

Don’t use jargon. This includes scientific jargon, industry jargon, and business jargon. This is challenging for many scientists who are so used to using jargon to communicate. If you absolutely must use jargon, define the term clearly and succinctly. If you don’t need it, cut it. Use a word your readers already know.

Don’t use passive voice. While passive voice may be the standard for academic writing, keeping an active voice keeps the reader engaged. Remember grammar school.

Passive voice: “The ball was kicked by Jan.”

Active voice: “Jan kicked the ball.”

Don’t use words you don’t need. Op-Eds are information dense, meaning every word pulls its weight. As you edit, look for words, phrases, maybe even whole sentences or paragraphs you can cut. Drive home your point. Pack a punch.

The Op-Ed format drives home the importance of clarity, which is what makes it such a powerful tool in any executive thought leadership strategy. Once you know how to structure an Op-Ed, and understand how to write within the constraints that structure creates, you’re well on your way to successfully using Op-Eds, whether your goals are science communication, executive thought leadership strategy, or influencing policy and practice. 

Want the complete playbook? Download Etalia's guide How to Turn Your Research Insights Into Op-Eds and start turning your research into published pieces that reach the people who need to hear them.