RSS
Debating the debate
Should both sides be heard in editorials?
Certainly, when reporters write impartial stories, they are obligated to obtain comments and information from both sides of an issue. That’s the only way to present a balanced report to the readers.
But for editorials, do you need to present both sides? It’s a debatable answer. Certainly, it would be a reasonable action. But is it necessary?
When you write an opinion piece, whether an editorial or guest opinion, you certainly need to back up your views with facts. There’s no debate about that. A well-written piece will use facts to support whatever is the writer’s argument. For example, if you believe interest rates on credit cards are too high, then it is only expected that you list examples of those rates. People — credit card company officials in particular — may not agree but at least you’ve presented some facts.
But how far do you go to express the other’s point of view. You could say that the interest provided badly needed revenue to support the bank or financial institution offering the card.
Generally, if you present the other side’s point of view, it’s usually in an attempt to refute it. For example, you could concede that the interest earned on credit cards supports the financial institution but say that the profit margin is too high — that it only should be 10 percent instead of 20. That’s your opinion.
The bottom line question is how much do you argue for the side you are opposing, if at all? Remember, in an opinion piece, you are trying to convince people that your point of view the best.
What do you think?
Certainly, when reporters write impartial stories, they are obligated to obtain comments and information from both sides of an issue. That’s the only way to present a balanced report to the readers.
But for editorials, do you need to present both sides? It’s a debatable answer. Certainly, it would be a reasonable action. But is it necessary?
When you write an opinion piece, whether an editorial or guest opinion, you certainly need to back up your views with facts. There’s no debate about that. A well-written piece will use facts to support whatever is the writer’s argument. For example, if you believe interest rates on credit cards are too high, then it is only expected that you list examples of those rates. People — credit card company officials in particular — may not agree but at least you’ve presented some facts.
But how far do you go to express the other’s point of view. You could say that the interest provided badly needed revenue to support the bank or financial institution offering the card.
Generally, if you present the other side’s point of view, it’s usually in an attempt to refute it. For example, you could concede that the interest earned on credit cards supports the financial institution but say that the profit margin is too high — that it only should be 10 percent instead of 20. That’s your opinion.
The bottom line question is how much do you argue for the side you are opposing, if at all? Remember, in an opinion piece, you are trying to convince people that your point of view the best.
What do you think?
posted by Allan Adler at
11:09 AM
1 Comments:
Mr. Adler,
This question takes me back to my college days. I think that the only obligation that a person has if they're writing a persuasive piece is to make sure that any facts that they provide are really facts. The interpretation of the facts is entirely up to the author, and there is no obligation at all to make the opposition's case.
I also think that while there is no obligation to make the opposition's case, it is always a good idea to address the main points of the opposing argument. I always thought that if you can't address the opposition's argument then maybe you should re-evaluate your own position.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home