In the Hustler's Opinion section, it has become our ritual after publishing an article to note the anonymous comments posted in response. In some cases, our writing may elicit praise or support from our readers. And it doesn't take long for sparks to fly, especially when it comes to topical or controversial articles.
“You don't understand market economics” user “PeterTx52” grabbed.
Deeply apologize.
Another user “silverfern” called The work is called “Absolute Garbage.''
Personally, that's my favorite type of trash.
A third user aptly calls himself “Who Cares” Asked“Who gave permission for this article to be published?”
I heard that Chancellor Diermeier himself rubber-stamped it.
As a writer and editor at Hustler, I find these comments little more than cheap entertainment in the short term. In the age of anonymity, our layers online have grown thicker. No one's feelings will be hurt. In fact, we appreciate readers who engage with what we write more than those who don't.
But in the silence between publishing one work and publishing the next, this kind of criticism creeps into my mind. They brainstorm ideas and formulate proposals, only to discard them after they put pen to paper. This is too dangerous. That's too ordinary. Before I knew it, the range of opinions I considered worthy of being published in print had dwindled to a point where I only managed to cover them once every few months. I thought these comments were harmless, but they actually made me question my own editing process and what was worth writing.
I have avoided writing about Greek life, the Title IX office, honor codes, and many other topics. That's because I wasn't sure if it was convincing enough. I had a hard time even citing my own experience drafting this very piece for fear of being seen as another exasperated writer spouting personal grievances.
If you look only at the articles I write in this section, you might think that I only have strong opinions once in a while. But those who know me well know that that couldn't be further from the truth. What gives?
When drafting your opinion piece, you want your thesis to be relevant, concise, and catchy. I'd like some main points and supporting evidence. Essentially, we want a discussion group. To get ahead of the inevitable criticism, I start writing op-eds as if I had to convince someone that I was right.
I'm not alone in taking this approach. Many of my fellow Opinion staff writers craft their stories in ways that avoid criticism.Recent articles on union support by staff writer Aaron Bohle function Similarly, this paper is well-researched and persuasive as it provides statistics and testimonials to support his claims. It has all the hallmarks of a strong argument.Article by staff writer Daniel Sack about his GPA at Vanderbilt University Run As well, it includes some key points, some data as ammunition, and a loud call to action that resonates in the conclusion.
Articles like this offer you (the viewer) an easy deal. Please take your time and read this article. That way I'll help you understand why I'm right. The authors are prepared for unfavorable reactions and are not afraid to state absolutes.
However, this is not the only way to write an op-ed. After all, in any situation, you only need to persuade half of your audience. The other half are people who already value what you have to say. How can I write something for them? What are they looking for?
This was an uncomfortable question for me, one that tapped into my insecurities as a writer and as a person. I realized that I was scared to share parts of myself with strangers. Instead of encouraging engagement, I was fortifying everything I wrote with a rampart of impersonal data and analysis. I could hardly see the underlying personality that made my writing my own.
I've found that forcing myself to write in the language of established facts plays directly into the hands of the naysayers in the comments section. I was allowing them to influence my decisions about what I would write in the future, even if I didn't edit the past articles they took issue with in the first place. I was afraid to write anything.”boring“That never happened.”linear” as well as publishing what they deem to be .embarrassing” or “complete nonsense” Due to lack of supporting evidence.
The unfortunate truth that opinion sections contend is that while a significant number of people read what we publish to hear and learn, many more read it to be entertained. That's the fact. When it comes to arguments, the ones we agree with may provide catharsis, but it's the ones we don't agree with that are the most entertaining. anger Emotions are considered one of the most powerful human emotions, and this fact has already been linked to controversial differences in the speed of social media posting. spread When compared to less virulent (less viral) content.
In other words, it's most fun for us to read something we strongly disagree with and immediately express that objection. Additionally, when we're hungry for confrontation, coming across an article that isn't a rigorous combination of facts and figures can feel like an invitation to criticize. Many times we flock to comment sections, if not to besiege a writer's work, then to watch what damage others have done there.
But we can also find entertainment in works that we can relate to – works that we can see, hear, and feel. These are the articles that get the opinion section going.
Consider former opinion copy editor Corey Feuer's opinion piece Grindr or Podcasts director Jaylan Sims' shortcomings article About neural bifurcation. Rather than bombarding readers with facts and statistics and immediately creating a defensive atmosphere, these authors aimed to build empathy with their audience and empower groups of people they empathize with. They wrote about what they felt and experienced in a poetic and realistic way. They don't need the same defensive tone because they try to share more than persuade.
Elise Harris, Senior Staff Writer Editor “Surviving a Year at Gillette” also perfectly encapsulates this style of writing. Rather than take up arms against the Commons House's infamy, Elise invites sympathy and stimulates the reader's sense of humor. How do you read the comments below that article? “Amazing,” “Perfectly Written,” and even “Hustler's Best Article of the Year.”
I have come to terms with the reality that there is more than one way to write an opinion section. Some works may be direct. Others may wander. Some provide a wealth of supporting research, while others are anecdotal and relatable and personal. This flexibility allows writers to truly express themselves and get heard by a wider audience. Being heard is important, but silence is boring.
I'm trying something new right now. I think I've written something that, while meandering and not necessarily specific, resonates with the authors who gather in the Surratt newsroom every Sunday. Even better, I'm still learning something. Not about the world, but about ourselves and what it means to share our thoughts with strangers.
Opinion staff are expressive, even when we do something wrong, struggle to find the words to express what we want to say, or write about things that everyone already agrees on. We are a creative and resourceful group. So, anonymous critics, get rid of them. Because your voice also matters in this section.