Submitting an op-ed
We receive scores of submissions each day and can publish only a small number of them. The best pieces jump off the page starting from the headline and first sentence, pulling the reader in with gripping, vivid language that advances a tightly reasoned argument.
Here are some points to help guide you.
Things we like:
Timely pieces of between 600 and 900 words.
Pieces with nuanced and precise language written in the active voice.
Pieces that are relevant to our readers. Please read what we publish to get better acquainted with the types of pieces we run.
Pieces containing unexpected, unpopular or contrarian arguments. A piece could be excellent but make a similar point as several other pieces we’ve run or plan to run. Make yours unique.
Pieces that take the best of the other side’s arguments seriously. We want to cultivate a good-faith debate and believe the “other side” in the argument being rebutted should be able to recognize the motives, beliefs and thoughts being attributed to them by the author.
Pieces that include hyperlinks to back up all assertions of fact, statistics and quotes, especially anything contentious or controversial.
Things we don’t like:
Pieces containing unnecessary words, stale imagery, pretentious diction, hackneyed language, overused and dying metaphors and idioms or, to quote Orwell, “phrases tacked together like the section of a prefabricated henhouse.”
Self-promotional or self-serving pieces that read more like press releases or advertisements than op-eds.
Conflicts of interest. Any relevant conflicts of interest must be made clear to us and readers.
Pieces that assume that the reader knows as much about the topic as the author does. Our readers are smart, but probably not as knowledgeable about a given topic as the person writing about it, especially if it’s a niche topic. Make sure the topic is interesting and the language accessible, and that the piece is not riddled with acronyms or newspeak (i.e., ideological jargon or euphemisms).
Swampy topics with corporate campaigns obviously behind them (PBMs, Puerto Rican bonds, vape regulations, procurement issues, patent law, antitrust, credit card swipe fees, etc. etc. etc.)
Ghost- or AI-written pieces.
Poor grammar/style, diatribes and extreme language.
Pieces that have been published elsewhere, either in full or in part.
Pieces with libelous or tendentious and poorly supported accusations against others’ character or integrity; disparagement of others or their viewpoints on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, birthplace, parentage, sexual orientation, sex; ad hominem and other logical fallacies.
*Please send submissions as text pasted in the body of your email to opinion@digital-staging.thehill.com or dallott@digital-staging.thehill.com.
