On Wednesday, our team held our second free communications training for researchers in health and science. “From Data to Dialogue: How Scientists Can Drive Change through Op-Eds,” was a success, and some terrific questions came up throughout the 90-minute webinar.
For my money, Op-Eds remain the single most effective medium for scientists to drive public discussion—in part because they channel your most valuable insights, not just the latest findings. As Op-Ed expert Diana Brazzell has written, they can “exponentially increase the influence of a scholar’s research.”
If you’ve ever thought about writing Op-Eds as a way to shape public discussion on health or science, chances are you’ve had similar questions to those that come up in our trainings. I’ve shared some of them below, along with my responses.
Q: How [do] you come up with an attractive title for an Op-Ed?
A: The best way we’ve found is to look at the headlines of Op-Eds published in the outlets we submit articles to, and mirror that. But don’t obsess over getting your headline perfect—just make sure it’s an accurate reflection of the argument you make in your Op-Ed. 99% of the time, the title we submit is not what gets published. The media outlet writes the final headline, and they do it with knowledge of what words will optimize engagement for their audience.
Q: Are there some "must have" e-tools to have when writing? AI?
A: [Etalia] is mastering the art of using AI as a tool to help us write Op-Eds more efficiently, but it’s not to write them. We use AI to do initial research, summarize important information — like what perspectives other people have already published. Humans are still vastly better at writing Op-Eds than AI, and the opinion editors (the people at media outlets who decide which Op-Eds to publish) we speak with have so far been adamant about rejecting article submissions they suspect were written by AI.
Q: For those of us who are not science celebrities, is it better to co-write (ghostwrite?) with someone who is more famous, like your Desmond Tutu example?
A: We’ve helped many, many people publish Op-Eds who had no recognized name or public profile. NGO people, academics, friends and family. If you have a perspective that’s unique, applicable and timely, and you follow conventional rules for writing and pitching Op-Eds, you have as good a shot as anyone of publishing. Adding authors also adds complexity — it’s harder to be personal, create a unified voice, and finalize a timely article with more than one author, so there is a trade-off. There are other considerations, too. For example, the Financial Times exclusively publishes sole-authorship pieces. No co-authors allowed.
A theme that continued to come up was related to the efficacy and value of the Op-Ed medium in a time when people are concerned about mis/disinformation—and when social media gives everyone their own free platform.
Q: To what extent do you think Op-Eds will still be effective in the age of “Truth Social,” “X,” and RFK?
A. Op-Eds are still effective, even after years of declines in traditional news reporting and the rise of new media. Part of the reason is that Op-Eds are persuasive — the rules of the medium demand that you present one clear argument and then back it up with a variety of different kinds of evidence. They also give you room to speak to your own personal experience within the article, so they’re not just a dump of impersonal data. Readers get to know you as an author and see where you’re coming from. And decision-makers still read Op-Eds, because they know Op-Eds, generally speaking, still provide hugely insightful and up-to-date commentary on critical issues.
Q: In this day and age of social media and everyone having their own soapbox what is the difference that an Op-Ed makes vs. a well-written LinkedIn post, for example?
A. Like a sonnet, Op-Eds have a set of rules and conventions that writers have to follow in order for it to be considered an Op-Ed and become publishable that way. Those rules and conventions are geared toward refining your thinking during the writing process. On social media, there are very few rules, and what that means is that in 20 minutes of reading social media versus 20 minutes of reading Op-Eds, the quality of insight you’ll ingest while reading Op-Eds will be much, much higher than what you’ll find on social media, generally.
But there’s another difference that Op-Eds make: what communications experts call the “halo effect,” or “borrowed authority.” When a respected publication or outlet publishes your Op-Ed, the reputation and caché of their brand transfers onto you and your writing.
These questions speak to the moment, and what a moment we are in.
It might be hard to trust that your words have power when so many people are speaking, but the power of Op-Eds to focus public attention, inform people’s opinions, shape policy and advance debate hasn’t waned. If anything, Op-Eds hold even more value now that they’re elevating the most timely and critical insights above the free-for-all backdrop of social media.
What about you — do you have questions about Op-Eds?
Put them in the comments and I’ll be happy to respond.
Thank you for being a subscriber to Building Deep. Aside from my writing on Substack, I also offer training and coaching for others who want to refine, publish, and share their opinions in a way that creates real impact and advances their goals. If you want to work directly with me and my team, check out our website or get in touch.