Structure +

Analysing and
comparing
opinion pieces

MDIA 2002 lecture

Jacqui Park
This week
• A guide to the structure of the opinion piece
(NOT the “inverted pyramid”)

• The Argument – Aristotle on rhetoric

• Analysing and comparing opinion pieces

Structure of the opinion piece
– (definitely NOT the ‘inverted pyramid”)
 The Hook (engaging observation; recollection; very short
summary of news event/issue; anecdote; comparison or
metaphor; question, etc.)
A structure The Thesis (the primary point/proposition/view for which
you will be arguing)
found quite Background / contextualisation

often in Supporting argumentation (series of justifications

designed to convince the reader that the Thesis is valid,
opinion fair, well-founded, true etc.)

pieces
Background / contextualisation
Refutation(s) – may appear at any point, woven in among
the supporting argumentation (arguments against
opposing views)
Wrap-up – provides a sense of conclusion/completion
(summary/synthesis of prior justification; final strong
justification; call for action/ suggested solution to the
problem; “book-ending” echo of the Hook; restatement
of Thesis)
 The Hook (engaging observation;
recollection; very short summary of news
event/issue; anecdote; comparison or
metaphor; question, etc.)

Extended observations, facts, findings

A variation (covert argumentation)

The Thesis (the primary

point/proposition/view which is
presented as the logical conclusion to all
the material presented)
And so on
An example of oped with extended
observations/facts and personal reflection

Personal reflection opinion pieces (some examples)

Just before I stepped on the bus ... it happened

Openings – the hook
The first line of an op-ed is crucial. The opening “hook” should grab the reader’s attention
with a strong claim, a surprising fact, an anecdote, a metaphor, a mystery, or a counter-
intuitive observation that entices the reader into reading more. The opening also briefly lays
the foundation for your argument.

Endings – the wrap-up

Every good column or op-ed piece needs a strong ending which has some basic requirements.
It:
• Echoes or answers introduction
• Has been foreshadowed by preceding thematic statements
• Is the last and often most memorable detail
• In many cases calls the reader to action
The argument
Rhetoric: The art of persuasion through language

All deep cultures have their thinking of understanding rhetoric like Confucius
and Mengzi in China, Plato and Aristotle in Greece.

It’s the pivot from direction (because God – or the gods – say so) to a
humanist persuasion using analogy, metaphor, logic

As writers, how we structure the argument go back to Aristotle.

https://newyorkimprovtheater.com/2017/10/25/ethos-logos-pathos-comedy-writing-blog-inspired-by-9yo-student/
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/the-dark-vision-of-
america?r=aavt3&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

The dark vision of America

Persecuting groups of people to score political points is
not OK.
From ETHOS…] I’m sorry, I know I already wrote about this last week. But I
just can’t let this one go. If I’m repeating myself, I apologize, [to PATHOS] but
this is very important.
[From ETHOS] It’s easy to let the latest outrage slip by as the news cycle
turns. [TO LOGOS] Just two weeks ago, Tucker Carlson
glowingly recommended a Hitler apologist. Just one week ago, a company
that sponsors a bunch of major right-wing podcasters was indicted
for working for the Russian government. [To PATHOS] In past eras these
might have been scandals that consumed the nation for months; now they
don’t even last one week.
[From LOGOS] And yet the “Haitians eating pets” thing seems to be
sticking around for a bit. [to ETHOS] I find myself coming back to it again
and again — not just because it’s such a moral outrage, [to PATHOS] but
because it so starkly illustrates the divergence between the vision of
America espoused by the Trump movement and the vision I was raised to
believe in. Like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it’s one of those rare
moments of complete moral clarity. [AND BACK TO ethos]Yet even
something this obvious still needs to be articulated.
[Extended LOGOS – scene setting] For those who don’t already know, the
story goes like this. Just before the presidential debate on September 10,
Trump’s vice presidential candidate JD Vance began to amplify
rumors that Haitian immigrants were abducting and eating pets in the
small Ohio city of Springfield. Trump picked up this rumor and claimed it
as fact on the debate stage, declaring:
An example – autism op-ed
Access the “autism op-ed” piece which is available on Moodle.
Consider how it is structured.
If possible identify the
following stages • The Hook (engaging observation; recollection; very short
summary of news event/issue; anecdote; comparison or
metaphor; question, etc.)
• The Thesis (the primary point/proposition/view for which you
will be arguing)
• Supporting argumentation (series of justifications designed
to convince the reader that the Thesis is valid, fair, well-
founded, true etc.)
• Refutation(s) – may appear at any point, woven in among
the supporting argumentation (arguments against opposing
views)
• Wrap-up – provides a sense of conclusion/completion
(summary/synthesis of prior justification; final strong
justification; call for action/ suggested solution to the problem;
“book-ending” echo of the Hook; restatement of Thesis)
Some useful online guides
(for freelancing too)

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/hks-communications-
program/files/new_seglin_how_to_write_an_oped_1_25_17_7.pdf

https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/faculty-students-and-staff/op-ed

https://commskit.duke.edu/writing-media/writing-effective-op-eds/

https://www.theopedproject.org/oped-basics
Analysing and comparing
opinion pieces
Analysis element of assessment 1
Instructions for assignment (full details on Moodle)
In this analysis you provide a comparison of your own piece with a published
commentary which you have identified as able to provide you with useful
pointers re your own writing (doesn’t need to be on the same topic, but it
can be) – pointers as to what you should do, or shouldn’t do.

Note that there are examples on Moodle (assessment hub) of such analyses
by students from previous years. May provide some useful pointers (but
there are lots of other ways to go about this task; you may want to address
different issues/different aspects of the two pieces; you may want to
structure your analysis in a different way, etc.)
Comparative analysis – step 1
Determine, if possible, what is the “Thesis” of each piece – the
main/overarching/central proposition which is being argued for/advocated
(you should be able to clearly articulate the Thesis of your own piece)
Consider the way in which the Thesis is announced, where in the piece, how clearly
etc.
Clear early statement of Thesis
Comparative analysis – step 1
Determine, if possible, what is the “Thesis” of each piece – the
main/overarching/central proposition which is being argued for/advocated
(you should be able to clearly articulate the Thesis of your own piece)

• Sometimes this Thesis will be clearly announced in the piece, sometimes

not.
• Sometimes the Thesis will be announced early on in the piece (in the first few
paragraphs – and/or in the title), sometimes not until later in the piece, or even
not until the final few paragraphs

• Some opinion pieces can be rather vague as to exactly what they are arguing
for – difficult to identify any specific Thesis / any key proposition at the centre
of the piece

• Some pieces can be seen to have more than one prominent or key
argumentative claim (make multiple cases, though related cases)
Thesis in the title – but delayed in the article body

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/postcolonial-
blog/2020/jun/10/the-toppling-of-statues-overseas-might-give-
australia-pause-to-reconsider-who-we-celebrate
https://www.afl.com.au/news/447171/players-take-a-knee-for-
black-lives-matter
Worksheet question (see copy of article on Moodle)
Is this really O’Brien’s primary argumentative claim (Thesis)? What is
the actual case she is advancing? Supply answer on worksheet
Comparative analysis – step 1

So the way the piece announces (or doesn’t announce) its Thesis can be
a point of comparison – e.g. where it is announced; how clearly
announced, etc
Points to ponder
Why not clearly announce the primary proposition which is being
argued for?
Why hold off on announcing the Thesis until later in the piece?
Persuading versus opinionating

persuading (advocacy)
where some form of justification, reasoning, or evidence is provided in support
of contentious claims of fact, demands for action, predictions, accusations or
negative/positive assessments

opinionating (associated with ‘flag waving’ pieces)

where no or fairly minimal support/justification is provided for potentially
contentious claims of fact, demands, predictions, assessments etc.

(Activity 2 in this week’s tutorial preparation)

Another possible line of comparative analysis
persuading (advocating) versus opinionating (flag waving)
Consider similarities/differences in the extent to which/frequency with which
the two pieces make contentious claims and accusations or assess people
negatively (or positively) without offering anything by way of justification,
argumentation or evidence for these claims, accusations or attitudes

Similarities/differences in the extent to which the two pieces do indeed, provide

some form of justification, reasoning or evidence for the contentious claims of
fact, accusations, predictions, and attitudes which are advanced.
Persuading versus opinionating about immigration?

Sonia Kruger Video – Worksheet - Question set 2.

In the video (see lecture recording) Sonia Kruger expresses a view on Australian immigration
policy.
(a) Indicate whether this is bare "opinion" (a value judgement without any supporting
argumentation/reasoning/evidence) etc or is it a case of genuine persuasion (i.e. a contentious
claim - or claims- which is justified in some way with a view to persuading the viewer of the
merits of the position being advance)
(b) Are there any issues around the 'logic' or 'well-foundedness' of the position being advance?
Identifying instances of opinionating
– contentious claims of fact, predictions, accusations, attitudinal assertions,
negative characterisations which are taken for granted – not supplied with
justification, evidence etc.
 Further suggestions for what to cover in your
comparative analysis
1. Similarities/differences re interest-value/topicality/freshness/originality of the
subject matter and/or the novelty/originality of the argument being advanced
2. Comparison in terms of the way in which the openings are formulated to “hook”
a casual reader – what form does the opening take etc.?
3. Comparisons re “advocatory” versus “flag waving”. To what extent are
contentious claims, demands, accusations, negative/positive characterizations
etc. taken for granted (i.e., not justified) versus being deliberately argued for,
provided with evidence?
4. Are they similar or different in terms of (1) assuming the reader largely shares the
author’s values and world view versus (2) assuming the reader may hold a
different viewpoint and hence needs to be won over.
5. With respect to the two piece’s Theses (the piece’s central or key claim) -
discuss the degree to which each piece has supported this with a well-
considered, well-founded, plausible justification.
6. How would you rate the two pieces in terms of their potential to win over a
resistant reader?
 Opinion piece pitch - Wk 3

Assessment criteria
To achieve a pass grade, the pitch must be free of presentation
errors (spelling, punctuation etc.), written in an appropriate
journalistic style.

1. The pitch provides all the information requested.

2. The pitch clearly outlines the nature of the argument which will be
mounted.

3. The pitch does a good job of 'selling' the opinion piece - i.e.
makes a strong case that it will offer an original argument which will
be topical, interesting and engaging.

4. The pitch is well written, well structured, easy to follow and

adheres to the word length (max 200 words)
Tutorials this week

• BYO opinion pieces, reviews and travel

journalism for discussion
• Pitching your opinion piece
• Analysing op-eds (readings in Week 3)
• Planning for your review and travel piece
Your opinion piece
Assessment 1– opinion piece (written, audio or, video - YouTube-style commentary package)
1. Opinion piece, written or video (600-700 words / 5-6 minutes)
2. Accompanying written analysis – comparison of your opinion piece with a related published/broadcast
opinion piece, discussion of points of similarity and difference (300 words)

[Topic] original argument on a topic of your choice (current affairs, arts-&-entertainment, lifestyle-&-leisure,
sport, etc. / Personal-reflection – subjective response to your own experience

[Format] Written, audio (podcast) or YouTube-style commentary video

[Audience] Intended for Newsworthy (general readership), or a ‘niche’ outlet (need to specify)

[Style and form of Argumentation] Serious, quirky or lighthearted; formal or more personalised (as appropriate
for the topic and outlet). A well-founded argument in support of the central claim, aimed at winning over any
readers/viewers who might be unfamiliar with the topic area or who might hold a different view.

Depending on the topic, may need to include references (in quotes or grabs) to published surveys, studies,
reports or other news media pieces – by way of support for your argument. Original interview material not
required but might be appropriate and add to piece.
Your opinion piece
Assessment 1– opinion piece Analysis element (300 words)
A comparison of your own piece with a published/broadcast commentary to provide you with useful pointers re your own work. You
may touch on these points in your comparison:

• the interest-value/topicality/freshness of the subject matter and/or the novelty/originality of the specific argument (or arguments)
being advanced? [provide some justification]

• How do the two pieces compare in terms of the way in which the openings are formulated to “hook” a casual reader/viewer

• How similar or different are the two pieces in terms of the extent to which they take for granted (i.e., treated as universally accepted
“givens”) either potentially contentious claims of "fact" or contentious positive/negative assessments. Do they provide justification
and evidence for such contentious assertions and evaluations. Or is one or the other more of a “flag waving” exercise – i.e.,
assuming a reader who shares the world view of the writer?
•
Determine what you believe to be each piece’s central or key claim (its “thesis), and then discuss the degree to which each piece
has supported this with a well-considered, well-founded, plausible justification.

• How would you rate the two pieces in terms of their potential to win over a reader who either didn’t have a view on this topic prior to
reading the article or who might previously have held a counter view? [Again, ensure that you don’t just assert a conclusion
here. You must provide some justification for what you claim.]
Journalists v content creators

Who gets to be influential? Who gets to

shape or change public opinion?
https://www.tiktok.com/@nimay.ndolo/vid
eo/7406363941711990059?lang=en

The Sydney Morning Herald remains Australia's most read news

outlet, with probably highest online and print circulation

New York Times – 10 million digital subscribers

https://taylorlorenz.substack.com/p/my-take-on-the-journalists-vs-
content?r=aavt3&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

https://www.tiktok.com/@nimay.ndolo?lang=en