We all use persuasion in our everyday lives.

We try to convince the car salesman to give us a rock bottom price. We try to convince a member of the opposite sex that we are witty, intelligent and fun. We attempt to convince a police officer to let us off with a warning rather than giving us a speeding ticket.

Yet, many people have no concept of the psychology of argument.

In this unit, we will cover a few basics of effective persuasion as it applies to editorial writing. We will also show an editorial structure which, though prescriptive, often helps young writers organize their editorials.

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?
  
  
• 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.
  
  
• Don't always take the easy route. Consider the less popular stand. Remember the axiom which states the roll 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.)

The journalist is now positioned to begin writing.

Here is a diagram of the structure of a traditional editorial.

Catch attention: Begin with a general statement which does not indicate the writer’s stand on the controversy. Be careful; don’t make it too obvious. It should be creative, thoughtful and specific.		Commit: The lead should flow naturally into the thesis, or stance, taken by the editorial.
Concede: After stating thesis, recognize strongest opposing argument.		Counter: Switch now into a strong argument in favor of your thesis.
Convince: Build on your last point by making an even stronger point. Be sure points are backed by facts, examples.
		Clinch: Save the strongest argument for last. This discourages rebuttal and leaves the reader with something convincing to ponder.
Commit again: Using different words, restate your thesis.		Cap it off: Leave the reader with a little something extra: a vision of the future, a revisit to the lead, a call to action, etc.
A final note: While professional editorial writers use many different structures, this model serves the beginning writer well. Its principles are solid. After the writer gets more experience, he/she will discover ways to vary the structure depending on the topic and approach.

The lead

Attention-getterXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Commmital statementX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Here is an example of an effective lead and committal statement from award-winning editorial writer Richard Aregood of the Philadelphia Daily News:

"Punish crime — not ideas"

People who have never had an idea tend to have the same response whenever they're confronted by something they don't like.

They blame ideas.

In this era of pinhead reasoning, a cottage industry has arisen. Stern censors, ablaze with the same righteous fervor such people have always had, have taken on new protective coloration. Many are masquerading as feminist scholars, especially in law schools. Possessed with the quaint notion that you can eliminate crime by preventing people from thinking about it, they have come up with a seemingly endless series of censorship schemes, each pretending to somehow protect women. Predictably enough, they have found allies among anti-feminist, male, right-wing politicians, who have never met an idea they wouldn't censor.

Their current hobby horse is Senate Bill 1521, the "Pornography Victims' Compensation Act," which would allow victims of sex crimes to sue publishers for damages in civil court. There would not be any need to prove a crime in criminal court, just a series of vague requirements that plaintiffs show that material published or sold was a "substantial cause" of the not-necessarily-proven crime.

Before you get any weird ideas, this is not an attempt to justify sex crimes, crimes against children or crimes of violence. People who do such crimes should be as severely punished as the law allows.

But they should be punished, not some publisher who's reprinted Faulkner and is now confronted with an allegation that reading a book inspired some creep to do something loathsome. . . .

The hook is the narrative about people getting upset with ideas. The topic is revealed in the paragraph about Senate Bill 1521, and the committal is given in the implication that punishing ideas, rather than criminals, is a misdirected effort.

The concession

Strongest argument against your thesis XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX but XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

You may wish to disarm the opposition by recognizing their viewpoint has some validity. This is a good move because those who disagree with your stand will be thinking it anyway.

The point is not rebutted; it is conceded.

The question might arise as to which point to use as a concession. Concede only the hardest point to argue against.

Notice in the example above for Aregood, the concession comes in the fifth paragraph with the phrase, "this is not an attempt to justify sex crimes, crimes against children or crimes of violence. People who do such crimes should be as severely punished as the law allows. But …"

The body

Strong argument for your thesis XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Stronger argument for your thesis XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Strongest argument for your thesis XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The psychology of argument dictates saving the strongest argument for last. There are two reasons for this strategy:

1. the reader will tend to remember the final argument longer, and
   
2. to end with a weak argument would invite rebuttal.

The conclusion

Thesis XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Something extra XXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

An effective ending to an editorial is to state or to restate the thesis, then leave the reader with a little something extra: a call to action, a vision of the future, food for thought, etc.

Aregood concludes his editorial with the following:

There remains one good old-fashioned way to punish crimes like rape and murder. We put rapists and murderers on trial, convict them and put them in prison, thus punishing the person responsible for the crime. We do not go back and file a civil action against, say, Charles Manson's mother, for mistreating him and assertedly making him a monster.

But what, you might ask, do we do about pornography. We don't buy it, that's what. More importantly, since today's climate is much more influenced by television that it is by all the pornographers on earth, we stop watching all the pant and snort and shoot epics on TV and we stop buying the products that are hawked on such shows. Maybe we even stop watching the TV news and thus become a little less frightened.

We use our rights without taking anyone else's. And all of us win.

In this example, Aregood restates his implied thesis, then gives a call to action to all citizens who are concerned about pornography.

VARIATIONS

Of course, this basic outline of the editorial has many variations, and many professional editorial writers do not use the form at all, or perhaps use it as one of several different organizations for their editorials.

But high school students often appreciate being given a structure. When they have more experience writing, they may wish to experiment with other organizational patterns.