Writing Advice: Overview

Writing for a general audience is very different from academic writing in many respects.

Public writing is great because it forces you to understand your subject matter better. When one can hide behind obscurant language, it can be easy to conceal from readers, and even from ourselves, things that are unclear in our thinking, flaws in our logic or gaps in our knowledge. However, writing in a clear, concise, compelling and accessible way for non-specialized audiences leaves far less wiggle room. And as a consequence, this enterprise often pushes us to think about topics we take for granted in a new way.

As an added bonus, refining one’s skill in communicating to non-specialists can have nice spillover effects in domains such as teaching. Undergraduate students, after all, tend to be a non-specialized audience. In fact, as a nice rule of thumb, one should try to write as though communicating with bright undergraduate students.

Here are a few additional guidelines that can help you maximize your chances of placing an essay in a mainstream media outlet:

Keep the length around 700-1200 words. There are few publications willing to publish, or even seriously consider, an essay much over 1200 words. Essays over 2000 words are quite rare – reserved generally for blockbuster feature stories and proven authors. Some literary/ academically oriented outlets with smaller reach will occasionally publish longform as well. Even in these cases, however, one typically has to justify the length if it approaches or exceeds 2000 words. In general, if it’s over 1200, it’s a tough sell to editors. And the more concise the better.
Aim for short sentences. Compared to academic writing, sentences and paragraphs should be short. If you are thinking about a ‘;’ or a ‘—’ or often even a ‘,’ consider trying a ‘.’ instead.
Hyperlink sources for claims. This is especially true for trivia that non-specialized readers might not know. It is necessary to link to a source for any direct quote or paraphrase, for any work directly referenced, and for any specific statistics offered up. Make sure the links are to reliable sources, and to primary sources as often as possible (including and especially academic studies/ books). Editors at outlets like the NY Times and Washington Post have fact-checkers and copy-editors that typically go through your links to see if you are backing up your claims properly. If things are poorly sourced, and it seems like it’ll be a lot of work to properly source and fact-check the piece, editors will often just pass on it.
Get to the point up front. By end of first paragraph, readers should have a strong sense of argument. Readers should not only have a strong idea of what you’re arguing, but they should also have a good sense of why they should care/ why it matters/ why they should keep reading. The intro paragraph is super important. If it’s not strong, editors will often simply move the essay to the rejection pile without reading further. Readers, too, will tend to tune out if the lede isn’t strong (in general, read-through rates, even for accepted and published articles, tend to be low. If one can’t sustain an editor’s interest through the essay, there’s virtually no chance of holding a reader).
Structurally: each paragraph should makes a single point connecting to main argument. Each sentence within paragraph should directly relate to the point that the paragraph is advancing. If there is any content that doesn’t clearly tie back to the core argument of the paragraph, and directly advance the core argument or narrative of the essay itself, that content can probably be cut (and would probably improve the work by being cut). Build everything around your core argument/ main point. Treat everything else ruthlessly.
Minimize jargon/ academic flourishes. If you must use specialized concepts, terms or acronyms, make sure you briefly explain them up front. Public-facing work is not really the place to show off one’s mastery over an academic literature, or to get into arcane and esoteric / highly specialized discussions.
Ask yourself: would a non-academic find this interesting? Essays written by and for academics are certainly possible to publish, but the range of publications interested will generally be smaller. Typically such essays will be limited to venues oriented explicitly around higher ed and/or particular fields of study. If the goal is to be more appealing at a generalist outlet, especially a prestige outlet, the essay should seem relevant or resonant to non-academics as well. Non-academics do care about a number of issues related to research, pedagogy or institutions of higher learning. However, they have to be discussed in a way that resonates beyond the ivory tower (i.e. in a way that is accessible, concise, compelling). And sometimes writers will need to be explicit about why readers should care. A good litmus test is to ask yourself, ‘(why) would a non-academic find this interesting?’ If the answer is unclear, work on the hook or argument until the relevance to non-academics seems more obvious. Elsewise, resign yourself to aiming it at an academia-focused outlet, and tailor it for that audience instead.
Ask yourself: would someone pay for this? Mainstream media outlets are, first and foremost, profit-oriented businesses. They are typically funded largely through subscriptions. To the extent they rely on advertising, the amount advertisers are willing to pay to an outlet depends on who its readers are and how large the readership is. As a function of these realities, one question editors regularly ask themselves is, ‘would someone else pay for this?’ Is it the type of content that would lead existing subscribers to feel like they’re getting their money’s worth, or even inspire non-subscribers into signing up? Would advertisers feel confident that this content will draw eyeballs to the page? If the answer is ‘no,’ or ‘probably not’ then a submission will face an uphill climb. An editor is unlikely to purchase an essay that readers themselves wouldn’t buy. If the content seems like it might alienate existing subscribers or lead advertisers to pull their investments, it is virtually certain that the contribution will be rejected, regardless of what its other merits might happen to be. Hence, a good gut-check for a submission to a mainstream media outlet is to ask yourself (honestly) whether or not it’s the kind of essay someone would conceivably pay money to read. If not, the essay will almost certainly end up published in a less mainstream outlet – and it should probably be aimed at a less aspirational venue from the start.
Try to have a subset of publications and audiences in mind as you write. Writing for Harpers is very different from writing for Quillette, which is very different for writing for The Guardian, which is very different from writing for National Review, which is very different for writing for the Washington Post, which is very different from writing for Foreign Policy, which is very different from writing for Chronicle of Higher Education, which is different from writing for Heterodox: The Blog. Even if you’re making the same argument about the same topic, the essay could be expressed in importantly different ways depending on who you are trying to reach and where you are trying to reach them. If you are deliberate and mindful about this, rather than ‘writing from nowhere’ (and to no one in particular), it can help produce a stronger article with a clearer voice and a significantly higher chance of placement. If you only think of where it can belong after it’s finished, you can find yourself with an essay that isn’t a clean fit for anywhere in particular.
Be aware: if you strongly align yourself (implicitly or explicitly) with a particular position in the culture wars or the perennial Democrat/ Republican partisan struggle, that will have important implications for where your work can end up. Essays with a strong ideological or political bent will be difficult to publish in many outlets. However, these same features may render a submission more compelling for other outlets (especially for more explicitly partisan or ideological outlets where one would be preaching to the choir). Where an article ends up can, in turn, have important implications for how different readers receive your argument — whether or not they read it at all, or read it in a hostile or sympathetic way. Many readers will have strong preexisting assumptions about yourself or your argument on the basis of the publication its placed in, often in a way that interferes with their ability to adequately grasp your point. To be clear: it can be great to publish in outlets with a ‘point of view.’ However, there are tradeoffs, and you should understand them, and calibrate your work to your goals and to the outlets and audiences you are trying to reach. If the mainstream progressive left is the audience who needs to hear your message, for instance, don’t publish it in National Review or Quillette, and don’t write it in such a way that it reads like it belongs in Commentary or The American Conservative. Go where the fish are. And try to speak to your intended audience in terms of their own values, narratives, frames of reference, etc.
Read what other people are saying on the topic you’re writing on and try to make a novel contribution. After an event like an election, for instance, editors get flooded with essays. The vast majority will make the same handful of fairly banal observations. Many will be very speculative, because the facts are still being established. Read what others are saying before you attempt to make a contribution yourself. Particularly, read what has been published recently by your venue of choice on the topic you’re writing about. Editors are often loathe to commission more than one essay in a short period of time making the same basic argument. Even if it’s a good essay, it’ll probably be a ‘pass’ if someone else has recently published (or is slated to publish) something similar in that publication. When you’re trying to work out your ‘angle’ on a story, see what other people are saying first, and then try to find something interesting to say that others are not saying.
You need a hook that is tied to the present. But also, try to write for posterity. If the essay doesn’t speak to the moment, it’ll have a harder time getting picked up (because it’ll be competing against a number of other submissions that seem more urgent in virtue of having a clearer connection to things happening ‘right now’). However, speaking to the present isn’t everything. If the essay is composed in such a way that people can revisit it in six months, a year, or three years and it still seems relevant, or comes off as prescient, all the better. Editors love essays that speak to the moment but may also enjoy a decent shelf life. They love having a stable of compelling essays that not only succeed in their initial outing, but that can be recirculated when a topic of conversation grows salient again. If you offer them that kind of essay, they’ll be more likely to bite.
Try to show rather than tell. If you have a colorful anecdote or brief story or compelling example that can illustrate a point, try that. If you have a graph or table you can use, especially one that you made yourself or for which reproduction rights won’t be a problem, it can be a real plus. Not all outlets include images, but even those that don’t embed visuals tend to love compelling anecdotes and examples. So whether by word or image, ‘show rather than tell’ as often as possible.
Prepare a pitch. When sending an article to an editor, you will need to include a 2-3 sentence overview detailing 1) the core argument, 2) why the essay in interesting, important and/ or speaks to the moment. It can be helpful to add an additional sentence explaining why you are an ideal person to write this essay (if you have unique and relevant life experience, professional experience, or expertise that informs the essay). The pitch is a nice check for essay cohesion: if you can’t explain the argument compellingly in a few sentences, the essay may not be as focused or tight as it should be (in any case, that’ll be the perception of most editors going into it). If the pitch isn’t interesting, editors may pass out of the gate, or read it strongly predisposed towards passing. A strong pitch can have the opposite effect.

If an essay checks all these boxes, it will likely be competitive for getting published in a solid outlet. For those who want to go the extra mile, a couple final tips for testing cohesion and flow:

Consider talking about your article with someone first. Writing is often a lonely process, and it can be hard to get out of one’s own head and understand how others might receive an argument. But if you kick the ideas around in conversation with others prior, it can help you see and anticipate possible holes in your case, additional considerations to think through, etc. It can allow you to pre-emptively address concerns an editor or reader might have. The act of verbalizing the argument can help you find ways to express the core ideas/ arguments in an efficient, compelling, accessible way too.
Consider reading your article aloud a few times. A conversational flow is ideal for op-eds. Reading the essay aloud can help writers recognize places where the text is a little too clunky, or choppy or goes on too long.

Finally, recognize, there are no guarantees. Even if you do everything ‘right,’ there’s still a high chance of rejection. This probability creeps higher and higher the more prolific the outlet one aims at. Even established authors have their pitches turned down somewhat regularly. Even strong essays regularly get rejected from outlets for a range of reasons. In general, editors are getting an inbox full of pitches daily, many of them from excellent writers offering interesting perspectives, and they can only afford to publish a fraction of the work they receive. Go into the process understanding that essays will often get rejected, then get revised in light of any feedback or subsequent considerations, and then get pitched elsewhere. Even a really strong essay may need 2-3 attempts at different outlets to find a home. It’s good to accommodate your expectations to this reality, and to have a backup plan for somewhere you’d like the essay to be in the event that your first choice falls through.

More soon. Good luck and happy writing!