Op-eds are not your personal wishlist
Don't say something should happen without explaining exactly how. Being vague makes you look like an amateur.
Thanks for reading Pitches Get Stitches. I’m Jake. I run Opinioned, a firm that helps leaders publish op-eds in top media. I previously built and edited the opinion section at Fortune.
In this newsletter, I dissect reader-submitted op-ed pitches from the perspective of an op-ed editor. I try to not only point out flaws, but highlight common themes I’ve noticed over my career evaluating pitches and helping clients construct their own.
I would love if you submitted a pitch for me to review. It can be something you’re actively working on or hypothetical—all are welcome.
If you have a pitch, reply to this email or send it to jake@getopinioned.com. If I select it, I’ll omit any identifying information and evaluate it in this newsletter—at no cost.
It’s natural to look at a problem and say: “Something must be done!”
Most of the time, we express such thoughts to our friends, not in a public forum. That’s because when it comes to most things, we’re not experts. We’re just offering our uninformed opinion.
When you’re writing an op-ed, though, you need to come across as authoritative. Otherwise the reader won’t trust you. A phrase like “do more,” which we see in this week’s pitch, isn’t specific enough. Readers want to know precisely what you think needs to happen and how it’s going to get done.
If you don’t go into detail, you don’t convey authority. That means you might sound like an amateur.
When writing op-eds, the more specific and tailored you can be in your recommendations, the better.
Pitches Get Stitches is the best newsletter. You know this in the core of your being. You’re so happy to be here. You will now subscribe.
The Pitch
Congress can do more toward protecting our most vulnerable children
[Recently] the nation's attention was riveted on the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings as Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other leaders of social media companies were reprimanded by lawmakers for failing to protect children online. Massive media coverage featured sound bites of heated exchanges between social media giants and politicians and the faces of grieving parents.
Absent from the headlines was the Ways and Means Work and Welfare Subcommittee hearing last month on supporting youth aging out of foster care, a particularly vulnerable sector of this country's youth. Members heard testimony about the challenges foster youth in America face as they transition into adulthood and ways to improve federal child welfare programs, such as The Title IV-B program.
Every year, around 19,000 foster youth age out of the foster care system. A good portion of these at risk teens experience rampant homelessness, hunger, sexual exploitation and incarceration, facing unique challenges such as accessing a driver's license, obtaining and sustaining employment, and completing post-secondary education.
Federal child welfare programs, like Title IV-B provides flexible funding for states to support family preservation, reunification, adoption and permanency for children in foster care. However, the program is outdated and Congress has not reauthorized it since 2008. Programs like Title IV-B are supposed to protect foster youth until they turn 21. Extending foster care beyond age 18 supports teenagers "aging out" of the system who have no adults or family to rely on, providing them with financial assistance, housing and casework support.
Author: [child welfare expert]
The Stitches
Who are you talking to?
If your op-ed is going to suggest a course of action, it’s essential to be clear about exactly who should be doing it.
Think about it practically. This pitch headline says that Congress can do more to protect vulnerable children. Who is this advice actually aimed at? Do you expect that all members of Congress are going to read your piece?
Even if they did, they’re all going to interpret your advice differently. These members all have different constituencies, political views and priorities. Speaking to them as a whole is almost like speaking to no one.
It’s more effective to target your advice to specific groups or individuals. For this pitch, the author might want to address members of Congress from states where the foster system doesn’t adequately protect kids aging out. Or they may want to target members whose politics align with the pitcher’s plan for reforming the foster care system. The author may even want to find out which members have strongly stated positions on the issue.
By targeting a specific subgroup, you’re forced to rely on sound logic to persuade your audience to look at things differently. That’ll make your suggestions more actionable and substantive.
Want something to happen? Be specific!
Anyone can say that Congress “can do more” to solve a problem. You’re not anyone, though. You’re a respected expert!
If you want to prove to readers you really know your stuff, you should be as detailed as possible when recommending action.
Being more specific accomplishes more than just making your pitch a better read. It also helps the reader more easily absorb your point-of-view.
Though they may not consciously realize it, many readers are looking for you to tell them how to think. It’s kind of like inception!
After all, you’re someone who’s spent a lot of time understanding your subject matter. It’s much easier for them to adopt your viewpoint and opinions than to take the time forming their own. Then, they can go out into the world more informed. And if readers are telling their friends and colleagues about your argument, you’re more thoroughly disseminating your views.
So don’t worry about getting too “in the weeds” with your action items. If an editor feels that your piece is too detailed, they can just trim it down. But they’ll be much more inclined to accept a piece with too much depth than one with too little.
Make the most of your headline
Avoid starting headlines with common, undistinguished terms like “Congress.” We see this word all the time, particularly in the media. If it’s at the head of your headline, it’s more likely to blend in with the many other pitches editors regularly receive.
It also signals to the editor that your article is likely to tell Congress what it should do about a certain issue. I’ve read thousands of pitches with this format.
It’s better to kick off your headline with a term that’s used less frequently. In this case, you might want to begin with “Vulnerable children” or “Aging out of foster care.” Alternatively, you could start with more active language, perhaps highlighting one of your most interesting recommendations in the pitch.
Another way to begin your headline is by framing the problem. This is more common nowadays, with some outlets’ headlines being much longer than traditional ones were. You can follow this general format: “Here’s a big problem. Here’s my solution.”
Too much setup
The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was too long of a lead, with both sentences of the first paragraph devoted to the setup.
Imagine if the editor had stopped reading there. They wouldn’t even know that the article had nothing to do with the Senate hearing, but was actually about children aging out of foster care. I know that the pitcher wanted to bring in a major news hook. But even if that’s what they were trying to do, they shouldn’t have used so much space in doing so.
Most editors are going to make assumptions about your piece from the first few lines. You don’t want them to make the wrong ones.
Don’t forget the argument!
I found it difficult to really understand what the author's argument was in this pitch. There always needs to be a clear statement of your thesis. That’s extremely basic, and maybe it’s so basic that sometimes it gets forgotten amid all the other things pitchers have to get right.
Usually, the thesis should be somewhere near the top of the pitch, following the lead. But even if it’s not there, it needs to be easy to find.
The closest to a thesis here is the last sentence. But because it’s written passively, it’s hard to tell if the author is expressing what they think needs to happen.
The start of the sentence—“Extending foster care beyond age 18 supports teenagers …”—doesn't sound like you're saying someone needs to do something. It sounds like you're saying this is a good thing that could happen. That doesn't scream thesis to me.
Long lists make me sleepy
Avoid long lists. They’re too long.
You want your pitch to be as snappy as possible. It should be fun to read, not a drag.
The list in this pitch takes up nearly the entirety of the third paragraph. It's not to say that all of the items in the list aren’t important; they are. But they should be broken up into smaller sentences.
Smaller sentences are simply easier for people to read, even if they're editors. I might split this up into something like, "A good portion of at-risk teens experience rampant homelessness and hunger. They might be sexually exploited. Many of them go to jail. And they often struggle to do basic things like get a driver's license, keep a job, and graduate college."
These small tweaks to the language make it easier to read. Anything you can do to simplify the editor's job in analyzing your pitch will help.
Your reader is not an expert
The final paragraph mentions the Title IV-B program, but I didn’t really understand what it does. The pitch says the programs like Title IV-B are supposed to protect foster youth until they turn 21. If that’s true, then why aren’t states protecting foster kids past 18?
The pitch says the program is outdated and Congress has not reauthorized it since 2008. But does a program being outdated mean it’s no longer in effect? Also, why has Congress not reauthorized it?
I have a lot of questions, as you can see. You don’t want anyone reading your pitch to have a lot of questions.
The best way to avoid that is to give a sufficient explanation of the issue you’re discussing. Unfortunately, a lot of pitchers avoid explaining relevant information for fear of writing a pitch that’s too long.
It’s too simplistic to say that “long pitches don’t work.” Certain areas of the pitch require more explanation, and therefore justify a longer length.
You definitely don’t want to start a pitch with a lot of boring background information. But if you’re explaining a concept that a lay reader wouldn’t understand, and it comes more toward the middle or end of the pitch, it’s a good thing to give a fuller explanation.
The editor is going to read the top of your pitch to determine if they’re interested. That should be short and to the point. If they decide they want to move forward, they’re going to keep reading to understand the entirety of your argument and its supporting points. They want to understand what the piece is about without having to read the entire draft, which is going to take more time.
Don't argue something obvious
Teenagers are aging out of the foster system, and Congress needs to fix this problem. This seems to be the essence of the argument.
As I’m reading an argument like that, I’m immediately thinking: Has this already been argued before? I haven’t even googled it yet, but this question is on my mind.
Most editors have developed a sixth sense for whether an argument is original. They may not even bother to double-check if it’s been done before if they feel confident in their gut instinct.
Figure out how to approach your topic from a new direction. In this instance, maybe there’s a specific reason why states haven’t been fulfilling their obligations to the program. What might be done about that?
Or perhaps there’s a certain group or individuals fighting against the implementation of foster care reform. You could highlight this issue and scold them.
Or take a more personal angle by illustrating how this policy is negatively impacting people’s lives. You could illustrate this by relating your firsthand observations from working in the space. Maybe you could then argue how kids aging out of foster care can more effectively advocate for themselves.