---
title: 'Template: op-ed or letter to the editor'
url: https://propagandaarchive.org/write/template-op-ed/
description: An op-ed is read by people who chose to spend a few minutes on it, which makes it the place for your best evidence and your answer to the strongest…
section: Write
---

![Illustration: a redacted-dossier collage of press photography, contact sheets and political crowds from multiple eras.](https://propagandaarchive.org/static/generated/hero-case-studies.jpg)

[Write](https://propagandaarchive.org/write/) · Templates

# Template: op-ed or letter to the editor

On this page

An op-ed is read by people who chose to spend a few minutes on it, which makes it the place for your best evidence and your answer to the strongest objection. Editors look for a clear argument, a reason to run it now, and a writer with a reason to be writing it.

**Best for:** local papers, national outlets, newsletters, blogs. **Length:** many outlets ask for roughly 600–800 words for an op-ed and 150–250 for a letter; check the outlet's own guidelines. **Pairs with:** [Template: short speech](https://propagandaarchive.org/write/template-speech/) (same argument, spoken).

## The structure

``` [HEADLINE] Your argument as a claim, not a topic. (Editors often rewrite it.)

[1. HOOK] 40–80 words. A news peg (why now) or one person's story. [2. THESIS] 1–2 sentences. What you want, stated plainly. [3. WHO I AM] 1 sentence. Why you're the person writing this. [4. REASON 1] 100–150 words. Claim, evidence, source. [5. REASON 2] 100–150 words. Claim, evidence, source. [6. REASON 3] 100–150 words, optional. Often a values reason. [7. OBJECTION] 100–150 words. The strongest counterargument, stated fairly, then answered. [8. CALL] 50–80 words. What the reader should do, and callback to the hook.

[BYLINE] Name, role, and any affiliation or funding that bears on the topic. ```

## Fill-in notes

| Part | Write | Technique it uses | Keep it fair |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Hook | A dated news event, or one real person's moment. | [Narrative](https://propagandaarchive.org/write/narrative/), [Identifiable victim effect](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/identifiable-victim-effect/) | Real story, with permission; composites flagged. |
| Thesis | "Riverton should…" / "Vote no on…" | [Messaging](https://propagandaarchive.org/write/messaging/) | Say the claim you'll defend; don't retreat from it later ([Motte and bailey](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/motte-and-bailey/)). |
| Who I am | Your real connection to the issue. | [Evidence and credibility](https://propagandaarchive.org/write/evidence/): ethos | No borrowed identity ([Plain folks](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/plain-folks/)). |
| Reasons | Claim, then evidence, then source, each time. | [Evidence and credibility](https://propagandaarchive.org/write/evidence/), [Framing](https://propagandaarchive.org/write/framing/) | Numbers with denominators ([Card stacking](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/card-stacking/)). |
| Objection | The other side's best point, in words they'd accept. Then your answer. | Two-sided refutation (O'Keefe, 1999) | Steel-man it; a weak version is a straw man. |
| Call | One action, and return to the opening image. | [Emotional appeal](https://propagandaarchive.org/write/emotion/): efficacy | One action, with how and when. |
| Byline | Name, role, affiliations. | Credibility | Disclose anything a reader would want to know ([Disclosure theater](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/disclosure-theater/)). |

## Filled example: for (condensed)

*Invented case: Riverton's Measure 12, a half-cent sales tax for buses every ten minutes. Figures in [brackets] are placeholders for sourced numbers.*

> **Riverton's families deserve their evenings back. Vote yes on 12.**
>
> Last Tuesday the Route 4 bus left Elm Street [22] minutes late, and [14] children missed the start of school. It wasn't unusual: on six of Riverton's routes, the bus comes every 40 minutes.
>
> Measure 12 would change that. A half-cent sales tax would pay for buses every ten minutes on those six routes from next September.
>
> I'm a parent of two and have chaired the Elm Street Primary PTA for three years.
>
> *First, time.* [Reason with the council's ridership study cited.] *Second, cost.* [Reason with the fiscal note's household figure.] *Third, fairness.* [Reason: households without a car, with census figure.]
>
> Opponents make a serious point: a higher sales tax could push shoppers over the county line. The gap on a [$40] shop is [20 cents], and the council's study found [most] Main Street customers live within a mile, which is where buses would run most often.
>
> On 3 November, vote yes on 12, and next winter the bus is there before you are.
>
> *[Name] chairs the Elm Street Primary PTA and is a volunteer with Riverton Families for Transit.*

## Filled example: against (condensed)

> **Measure 12 is the wrong way to fix Riverton's buses.**
>
> Harlow Hardware has been on Main Street since 1988. Last year, [three] of its neighbours closed.
>
> Riverton needs better buses. But Measure 12 would pay for them with a sales tax [half a point] higher than the next county's, two miles away, and that falls hardest on the shops that are already struggling.
>
> I run Harlow Hardware and serve on the Chamber of Commerce's board.
>
> *First, prices.* [Reason with state tax tables cited.] *Second, a better option.* [Reason: county grant schedule showing routes it can fund.] *Third, accountability.* [Reason: the measure has no sunset clause, with section cited.]
>
> Supporters say faster buses will bring shoppers to Main Street. They might. But the council's study doesn't measure that, and the three routes that pass Main Street already run every [20] minutes.
>
> Vote no on 12, and come to the council meeting on the 14th to back the county grant plan.
>
> *[Name] owns Harlow Hardware and is a board member of the Riverton Chamber of Commerce, which opposes Measure 12.*

## Real ones to study

The *Federalist Papers* (1787–88), published as newspaper essays under the pseudonym "Publius", and the Anti-Federalist essays by "Brutus" and others, argued opposite sides of the US Constitution in exactly this form: thesis, reasons, objections answered. Pseudonymous publication was then the norm; this handbook asks you to write in your own name so readers know who is writing and why.

## Before you submit

Run [Before you publish: the fair-play check](https://propagandaarchive.org/write/before-you-publish/). Then read the piece aloud: anything you stumble on, cut.

## Sources

- O'Keefe, D. J. (1999). How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages. *Communication Yearbook*, 22, 209–249.
- Hamilton, A., Madison, J. & Jay, J. (1787–88). *The Federalist*.
- Storing, H. J. (ed.) (1981). *The Complete Anti-Federalist*. University of Chicago Press.

## Related

- [Framing](https://propagandaarchive.org/write/framing/)
- [Evidence and credibility](https://propagandaarchive.org/write/evidence/)
- [Narrative](https://propagandaarchive.org/write/narrative/)
- [Before you publish: the fair-play check](https://propagandaarchive.org/write/before-you-publish/)