I write opinion pieces because ideas need force — a clear point of view, a sharp frame, a call to rethink the familiar. But strong commentary and clear factual distinction are not opposites; they're obligations that live together. If an opinion section is loud without being anchored in facts, it loses trust. If it is careful to the point of timidity, it loses its purpose. Over years of editing and publishing, I’ve learned practical ways to hold both tensions at once. Here’s how I try to do it at Thepostview and why each choice matters.
Label what you’re doing, early and visibly
Readers deserve to know from the first line whether they’re getting analysis, advocacy, or reporting. That’s why I insist on prominent labels and bylines. On our site, an “Opinion” tag sits where a reader’s eye lands — alongside the author name and a short kicker summarizing the stance. It’s a small UI cue, but it sets expectations.
Beyond labels, I try to open with an explicit statement of purpose: “I argue that…,” “I believe…,” or “This piece explains why…” Language matters. When I write, I try not to conflate reporting language (“X happened”) with persuasive moves (“X proves Y”). That doesn’t make an argument any less forceful; it simply makes the rhetorical structure honest.
Anchor claims in verifiable facts — and link them
A strong voice should still be tethered to evidence. When I make a factual claim, I link to the source: a government report, a peer-reviewed paper, court filings, or a reputable news article. Links aren’t footnotes for academics only; they’re trust infrastructure for readers who want to verify or dig deeper.
When sources are behind paywalls, I summarize the key point and, when possible, link to alternates or quote relevant passages. If something is disputed or uncertain, I flag it. Phrases like “according to” or “reported by” matter because they tell the reader whose version of the facts we’re using.
Separate fact from interpretation within the piece
I often structure columns so that factual paragraphs stand apart from the interpretive ones. That can be as simple as alternating a short factual paragraph and then a paragraph where I explain its significance. Visually and rhetorically, it helps readers parse what is established versus what I’m arguing.
For example, in a piece about tech regulation I might include a short paragraph listing the new rules and dates (facts), followed by a paragraph analyzing how those rules will reshape incentives (interpretation). That separation also aids editors and fact-checkers — they can verify facts without wading through rhetorical flourishes.
Use a separate “facts” box or timeline when complexity requires it
Some subjects accumulate nuance fast: legal disputes, scientific debates, election rules. When a column touches a lot of technical or contested material, I add a short sidebar or timeline with the uncontested baseline facts. A compact “What we know” box can list confirmed events, key dates, and primary sources. It’s a small design move that does a lot of work for clarity.
- What we know: Documented rulings, dates, official statements.
- What’s in dispute: Competing claims with sources.
- Open questions: Items that require more evidence or time to resolve.
Be precise with language — avoid weasel words and absolutes
Certain words erode clarity. “Many,” “some,” “experts say” — these are sometimes accurate but often lazy. I prefer quantification where possible: how many, which experts, what percentage. Conversely, I avoid absolutes like “always” or “never” unless I truly mean them. Precision doesn’t dampen voice; it strengthens the reader’s ability to evaluate the argument.
When I must use hedging, I explain why. If a claim is probabilistic — for example, “This policy is likely to reduce X over five years” — I add the rationale: past cases, modeling, or credible counterarguments. That transparency builds credibility even when the subject is uncertain.
Flag opinionated moves inside the piece
I believe an opinion writer should be able to advocate. But I also think readers deserve to see advocacy moves spelled out. If I propose a policy or recommend a course of action, I usually preface it with “I recommend” or “We should.” That’s different from presenting the recommendation as an inevitable conclusion of fact. It signals that values, not only evidence, are at play.
Keep corrections and clarifications visible and timely
No piece is perfect. When readers point out mistakes, I respond quickly and transparently. On Thepostview we add clear correction notes at the top of the article and explain what changed. Some sites bury corrections; I prefer to make them prominent. Correcting a factual error is not a sign of weakness — it’s part of the bargain with readers.
Use editors and fact-checkers early and often
Opinion sections should not be lone-wolf playgrounds. I involve editors and — when a piece includes technical claims — fact-checkers before publication. That might mean asking a policy expert to read a paragraph, or requesting a data verification pass. These steps add time, but they reduce the risk of error and strengthen the argument.
For particularly contentious topics, I sometimes ask an independent external reviewer to look at the factual claims. That extra step is worth it when the stakes are high.
Show counterarguments and engage with them
A confident opinion acknowledges credible counterarguments. When I anticipate pushback, I lay it out fairly and explain why I still reach my conclusion. That practice does two things: it sharpens the piece and signals to skeptical readers that I’m not arguing from a bubble.
Showing counterarguments can also encourage civic conversation. If someone with a different view sees their concerns addressed in good faith, the space for constructive disagreement grows.
Design matters: layout, headlines, and social cards
How an opinion piece is presented online affects perception. Sensational headlines that blur factual reporting and commentary confuse readers. I choose headlines that reflect the piece’s argumentative nature — not clickbait. Social cards and meta descriptions should similarly label the content as opinion and avoid extracting factual-sounding claims out of context.
For instance, a headline like “Why Surveillance Tech Harms Privacy” is editorial; a headline that reads “New Study Shows Surveillance Tech Causes X” when the study is correlational is misleading. The former is fair; the latter invites confusion when shared on platforms like X, LinkedIn, or Facebook.
Teach readers how to read opinion
I believe part of a newsroom’s job is media literacy. Every few weeks I publish short explainers about how to read opinion: how to spot evidence, how to distinguish rhetoric from reporting, and when to trust an assertion. Those pieces don’t replace good writing, but they cultivate a smarter audience that holds us to higher standards.
Personal voice, with intellectual humility
I write in the first person because insight is personal: our values, experiences, and judgments shape what we argue. But personality should coexist with intellectual humility. I try to show where I’m less certain, which assumptions I’m making, and which parts of the argument rest on judgment calls rather than hard facts. That honesty invites dialogue instead of monologue.
Balancing strong commentary with clear factual distinction isn’t a formula you master once. It’s a set of practices you keep returning to: label clearly, anchor in evidence, separate fact from argument, correct mistakes, and show your work. If we do those things, opinion sections can be both forceful and trustworthy — and that’s the kind of journalism I want to read and to publish.
