Contents Prewriting Writing The Lead The Concession The Body The Conclusion Another Tutorial

While the First Amendment gives Americans the right to speak out on matters of concern, it offers no protection from the ridicule that a printed ignorant opinion may elicit. Furthermore, it does not guarantee that a disorganized, incoherent piece of writing will even be read.

Thus, the journalist must first prepare, then write.

• Find a topic. Brainstorm. What controversial events have been in the news nationally? Locally? In your high school? (Learn how to find relevant ideas)
  
  
• Research. Professional editorial writers know the value of this step. Computer-assisted research, personal interviews, news articles on the subject, archives, personal interviews, library documents and other sources should give the writer an adequate background. It is virtually impossible to over-research a topic, especially if the topic is complicated or not generally understood by the reading public. Remember, there is no audience for an uninformed editorial. (Use our Research Center)
  
  
• Don't always take the easy route. Consider the less popular stand. Remember the axiom which states the role of a newspaper is "to comfort the afflicted and afflick the comfortable." Don't necessarily play Devil's advocate, but don't feel you must represent majority opinion either. Hold your journalistic ideals high when you take your editorial stance.
  
  
• Take a reasonable approach. Since life has few absolutes or superlatives, remember to consider the degree and circumstance of the truth. Generally avoid inclusive words such as "always" or "never." Be specific and accurate with examples.

Next, the journalist must find and refine the thesis.

The basic skill needed here is the ability to generalize. What does all the research on the topic indicate is the center of controversy? Can you state this main idea, or thesis statement, in a clear, simple, understandable way? Is the topic arguable?

For example, let's suppose you wanted to write an editorial on the problem of guns being brought to school:

• Attempt # 1: Guns in school.
  This is a weak thesis. It states the general topic, but it is not stated in a full sentence. Furthermore, it is not an arguable statement.
  
  
• Attempt # 2: Guns in school are bad.
  Well, better, but still weak. It is not specific. Furthermore, it states a truth that few people would question, so it is not controversial enough. Who would possibly take the opposite viewpoint and state that gun-wielding students and gang members improve the educational atmosphere at a school?
  
  
• Attempt # 3: Steps should be taken at Central High to keep guns away.
  We're getting closer. But exactly what steps should be taken? Again, would anybody question the thesis, or would nearly all readers agree that a proactive approach to preventing another Columbine High incident is commendable?
  
  
• Attempt # 4: Metal detectors and security police should be implemented at Central High to prevent shooting sprees by troubled students.
  This is a thesis we can consider. It is an arguable statement. It deals with a current, relevant societal problem.

Once a workable thesis is developed, the writer must organize the structure.

Using the researched material, the journalist must now begin sorting the arguments. Which facts support the thesis? Which argue against it? Could any be used to argue both sides? Which facts don't directly relate to either? (This information may be set aside. It is normal to have much good information that does not relate, and, therefore, must be saved for another day.)

It's best to make a list, something like this:

Thesis: Metal detectors and security police should be implemented at Central High to prevent shooting sprees by troubled students.

Supporting arguments

• Would eliminate guns, knives, other weapons from being carried into the school.
• Would reduce problem of students sluffing or hanging around the halls.
• Would improve educational atmosphere where students could learn without fear.
• Would deter gang activities and violence.
• Would make the school a more attractive workplace to potential teachers.
• Would be less costly than dealing with potential tragedies caused by guns in school.

Opposing arguments

• Too costly. Money is badly needed for educational expenses.
• Inconvenient. Entrance into and out of school would be slowed.
• Prison atmosphere created.
• Fails to deal with the root cause of violence.
• Not fool proof. Guns could still get into school.

Once all legitimate arguments are listed, the writer should rank the arguments in each list from most effective to least effective. This ranking will come in handy later when trying to decide on a concession and the order arguments should be presented in body of the editorial. (See explanation below.)