Op-ed Pieces

Call it “shameless self-promotion” if you must. But the op-ed piece I had published in the Albany Times Union this week, “Let's protect N.Y.'s water,” seemed  an appropriate topic for the blog.

“How’s that,” you say, “what does a speech to a room full of people, have in common with a short article opposite the editorials in a daily newspaper?”

Quite a lot, actually. I’ve mentioned in previous posts that there are similarities, so this seems a good time to examine them.

Op-ed pieces have much in common with speeches, but they are usually shorter, generally between 500 and 800 words, depending on the publication. They appear in the Viewpoints section of the newspaper, they express opinions, rather than being “hard news,” and need to have a clearly defined point of view.

Here’s what they have in common with speeches - both express opinion, and they share a similar structure. That structure consists of three main components:

Introduction – It’s a chance to establish audience identification with the topic. Lose this chance and you are likely to lose your audience as well. In an op-ed, this is called the “lede.”

Main Body – Carries the most important elements of the speech. This section should be developed step by step, in a logical or linear fashion.

This is the place to provide all the supporting information to bolster your arguments. Facts and figures are appropriate here.

Conclusion – This is the place to summarize what has been said. It’s also where to either issue, or restate a call for action. A good closing line is vital for a good speech just as for an op-ed, where this is known as a “kicker.”

As with a speech, research is vital to a good op-ed piece. This is where facts, figures, and other solid information build the case.

Newspapers generally look for certain elements in op-ed pieces:
The piece should focus on an issue of interest to readers of the newspaper. If the piece is related to a story that has already appeared in that publication, it indicates the paper’s editors have already judged that this issue is interesting to the paper’s readers. Another good technique is to develop a theme of topical concern - such as a public holiday, significant anniversaries, or comments on recently issued reports by some professional organization.

The author should have some special expertise or knowledge not generally available to the average reader. The writing should be concise. Concise is a term that varies from publication to publication, but it usually means something ranging between 500 and 800 words. That’s a major difference between a speech and an op-ed. If you’re asked to give a fifteen minute speech, no one will complain if go over that by a minute or two. If the paper’s limit is 650 words, believe it, and use a word counter to make sure.

There’s one other difference - a speaker is invited to give a speech. Most op-ed pieces are unsolicited.

If you can write an op-ed, you can certainly write a speech. The reverse may not be true.

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

A Declaration

Title: Declaration of Independence
Speech By: The Founders
Date: July 4, 1776
Location: Independence Hall, Philadelphia
Occasion: 13 Colonies Declare Independence

Analysis:
It was meant to be read aloud.

We don’t usually think of the Declaration of Independence as a speech. But it was meant to be read aloud. It was written at a time when being “on the stump” was a literal, not just a figurative exercise. Politicians, itinerant preachers, and those just seeking public attention, would come to a town, stand on an old tree stump near the center of it, and speak as, hopefully, a crowd gathered.

When the Continental Congress had finished editing Jefferson’s draft, it was sent immediately to printer John Dunlap, who produced between 150 and 200 copies, known as the "Dunlap broadsides" for distribution up and down the coast.

The first official public reading was by John Nixon in the yard of Independence Hall on July 8. A copy was sent to General George Washington, who had the Declaration read to his troops in New York City on July 9, with the British forces not far away. After it was read to another crowd of citizens - no longer were they subjects -  in New York City, they tore down a statue of King George mounted on horseback, and melted it down to use the lead to make musket balls.

As a speech, the Declaration of Independence is an enormous success.

The language itself is stirring. Jefferson, who would not be publicly revealed as the main author for another twenty years, launches directly into the point of the matter. “When, in the course of human events,” it starts, with simple but potent language. By the end of that first sentence, he has already stated the whole point of the document - Britain’s former colonies have separated their bonds and now hold an equal station among the powers of the earth.

Then comes what is likely the most famous sentence in all political rhetoric - “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

“Truths!”, it asserts. These things are True, it proclaims. And how do you argue with the truth? We are all entitled, of right, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It then launches into what amounts to a 27 count indictment of King George and his parliament. We have discussed in other posts how the use of a repeated phrase serves the same purpose in spoken material as a bullet point does in printed material - it alerts the audience each time a new point is to be made. The technique is used here to a fault.

It sets up the points this way - “To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.”

Then, the word “He,” followed by the offense charged. It is repeated 13 times. Then the word “For” is substituted for the next nine repetitions, before reverting back to “He” to make the final five points. Interestingly, in colonial times, these 27 points were considered the more important part of the Declaration.

The concluding paragraph returns full circle, to restate what has already been said in the first sentence - that the colonies no longer are such. They are now free and independent states - “these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown.”

It concludes with a solemn vow, as befits a declaration of this moment: “And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

When you read the Declaration, think of it as a speech. For truly, it spoke volumes to the world. It still does.

Text Posted: U.S. History.org
Length (words): 1329

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

A General Sacked

Speech By: President Obama
Title: Resignation of General McChrystal
Date: June 23, 2010
Location: Rose Garden
Occasion: Resignation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal

Analysis:
These remarks are not a case of how well something is said, but rather, the substance of what is said, and how decisively the words are delivered. By that measure, these remarks meet the standard admirably well.

Let’s start by not mincing words - General Stanley McChrystal was fired, he did not just resign. Let’s take it one step further - he should have been fired.

The Bully Pulpit has covered the controversy between Gen. McChrystal and the President, beginning with the General’s speech last Fall in which he indicated 40,000 more troops were needed in Afghanistan. It came close to crossing the line of insubordination, but was not overtly political. Still, the speech did serve to put unwelcome political pressure on the General’s ultimate boss - the Commander in Chief.

In response, the Commander in Chief went directly to West Point - to speak in front of those who would have to carry out whatever decision he announced - to deliver his reply.

It is the highest tradition of the American military, that its members ultimately take their orders from civilians. That they do this without public challenge, has given us a nation worthy of the lives they are willing to expend in its defense.

The most notable exception to this honored tradition was General MacArthur’s public challenge of President Truman during the Korean War. While it cost him political standing, Truman’s response, to fire MacArthur, ultimately strengthened the nation, and the Presidency itself.

While General McChrystal’s staff antics - speaking with open contempt of elected civilian officials in the presence of a reporter for Rolling Stone - may not quite rise to the same level as MacArthur, they are egregious enough. Given the previous history, there really seemed no choice. The President’s swift, decisive action in this case, is in the high tradition of President Truman, and America itself.

Length (words): 1176
Text Posted: White House Web Site


From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

Rock Star of a Speech

Title: Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat
Speech By: Winston Churchill
Date: May 13, 1940
Location: House of Commons
Occasion: First Speech as Prime Minister

Analysis:
Let’s begin by dispelling an urban legend. Despite the claim of a music publicist a generation later, this speech did not provide the inspiration for the name of a rock and roll band.

But it is a rock star of a speech.

It is a short speech, and it is Churchill’s first speech before Parliament, as the nation’s new Prime Minister. Early on, it is heavy on the administrative elements of establishing a new government.  He outlines what has been done to establish the new government, then asks the house “to record its approval of the steps taken and to declare its confidence in the new Government.”

With the administrative functions complete he launches into the travails he sees ahead. It would still be more than a year and a half before the United States joined the war, and his nation had already been at war for seven months.

He prepares his government for the difficulties of the struggle ahead - “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.”

Then he sets out the task before the nation:
“You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.”

It is a call to action, direct, pointed, unambiguous. It is a wonderful way to inspire an audience. In this case, it inspired all those who longed to be free of the Nazi terror.

Seventy years later, it inspires free people still.

Text Posted: The Churchill Centre
Length (words): 730

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

Boys of Pointe du Hoc

Speech By:  President Ronald Reagan
Title: The Boys of Pointe du Hoc
Date: June 6, 1984
Location: Pointe du Hoc, France
Occasion: 40th Anniversary of D-Day
Analysis:
They landed at the bottom of the cliffs on D-Day, 225 Rangers assigned to scale the sheer cliffs on ropes, battling German defenders above the whole way up. Those lucky enough to reach the top, then had to take the German 155 howitzers whose sights were trained on the beaches at Normandy. After two days of fighting, the Rangers had suffered 60% casualties.

This was the heroic feat commemorated in President Ronald Reagan’s speech “The Boys of Pointe du Hoc.” While no mere ceremony could be equal to their feats of valor, this speech is at least worthy of describing them.

This is a masterpiece of the collaboration between speech writer and speaker. Written by Peggy Noonan, she brings a visual quality to the description of the scene, using plain language. “We stand on a lonely, windswept point on the northern shore of France. The air is soft, but 40 years ago at this moment, the air was dense with smoke and the cries of men, and the air was filled with the crack of rifle fire and the roar of cannon.”

The opening sentence launches into the speech without hesitation, and establishes that all-important shared identification with the audience. In this case it’s a simple but inarguable premise - We all owe these men a very great deal: “We're here to mark that day in history when the Allied armies joined in battle to reclaim this continent to liberty.”

The symbolic meaning of the memorial being dedicated that day is revealed: “Behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the Ranger daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs. And before me are the men who put them there.”

Then come the simple yet memorable lines from which the speech takes its name: “These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war.” Repetition. Like bullet points on a sheet of paper. Notice how each line builds in significance - to show the true importance of what these men accomplished.

As befits an international ceremony, it does not stint on praise for the honor, the resolve, and the sacrifice of all the allies who took part in the liberation of Europe - it speaks of the valor of the Poles, and the Canadians, with a thinly-veiled reference to the disastrous raid at Dieppe two years earlier. Then a seeming roll call of the units involved: “All of these men were part of a rollcall of honor with names that spoke of a pride as bright as the colors they bore: the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, Poland’s 24th Lancers, the Royal Scots Fusiliers, the Screaming Eagles, the Yeomen of England’s armored divisions, the forces of Free France, the Coast Guard’s “Matchbox Fleet” and you, the American Rangers.”

Three years before his speech at the Brandenburg Gate, Reagan does not hesitate to call one of the allied partners up short: “Some liberated countries were lost. The great sadness of this loss echoes down to our own time in the streets of Warsaw, Prague, and East Berlin. Soviet troops that came to the center of this continent did not leave when peace came. They're still there, uninvited, unwanted, unyielding, almost 40 years after the war.”

Yet he also offers assurance there is no quarrel with the Soviet people, and that he recognizes their own suffering and valor in the War: “It's fitting to remember here the great losses also suffered by the Russian people during World War II: 20 million perished, a terrible price that testifies to all the world the necessity of ending war. I tell you from my heart that we in the United States do not want war. We want to wipe from the face of the Earth the terrible weapons that man now has in his hands. And I tell you, we are ready to seize that beachhead. We look for some sign from the Soviet Union that they are willing to move forward, that they share our desire and love for peace, and that they will give up the ways of conquest. There must be a changing there that will allow us to turn our hope into action.”

If you listened to just the audio of this speech there would be points where it seemed that maybe Reagan had lost his way, that there were awkward silences. But if you watch the video, it becomes apparent he is taking his time to pause deliberately, to seek out faces in the crowd - particularly those Rangers that crowd was there to honor. When I referred earlier to the great collaboration between speech writer and speaker, this is the part where a speaker is always on their own, and the “Great Communicator” is more than equal to the task. He is, in fact, its Master.

Notice, finally, that in the video Reagan constantly refers to index cards to prompt him along during the speech. Today that would most likely be a teleprompter. It seems as anachronistic as watching a P-51 Mustang fly into battle today. But both got the job done in their time.

Length (words): 1843
Text Posted: The History Place
Video Posted: Reagan Foundation

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

These Honored Dead

In my last post, A Crime To Vote, we examined how the freedoms we enjoy can always be taken away if we do not defend them. Not only that, it seems there is always someone prepared to take those freedoms away.

Today we honor those whose ultimate sacrifice helped preserve those freedoms.

These Honored Dead Is a short YouTube video I did, in tribute to their sacrifice. I hope you will take a few minutes to view it.

From the standpoint of a writer - notice how few words are sometimes needed to communicate important ideas.

From The Bully Pulpit - Memorial Day 2010

A Crime To Vote

Title: Is it a Crime for a Citizen of the United States to Vote?
Speech By: Susan B. Anthony
Date: 1873
Location: Monroe and Ontario Counties, New York
Occasion: Response to indictment for voting in a federal election
Analysis:
Quick question - when did women first vote in a Presidential election?

Was it in 1920, after passage of the Nineteenth amendment? How about two years after the admission of Wyoming to the Union in 1890? Or perhaps it was Susan B. Anthony's solitary act of defiance in 1872? We'll return to that question later.

Having cast a ballot in the 1872 Presidential election, Anthony was indicted a few weeks later for - having voted illegally in a federal election. She responded by delivering this speech.

She gave it in every Town and Village in Monroe County and twenty-one Towns in Ontario County  fifty locations in all! Her question to her listeners was - Is it a crime for a citizen of the United States to vote?

At more than ten thousand words, it is a fairly long speech - probably at least an hour in length.

It is also one of those speeches that might well be considered a “Contra speech,” in that it had an effect that wasn’t considered when it was given. It turned out to be so effective that the federal prosecutor had the trial moved to Canandaigua, to avoid prejudice in the jury pool. Generally, that’s a move the defense makes, not the prosecution.

In the end, Anthony was fined $100 - a fine she never paid.

As for the question at the beginning of this post - when did women first vote in a Presidential election? It was in New Jersey during the election of 1800, the contest between President John Adams, and his Vice  President - Thomas Jefferson. The women who voted were either widows or old maids. Why “widows and maids?” New Jersey had a residency requirement, but its constitution made no mention of any gender restrictions. Like most states of that era, New Jersey required voters  to own a certain amount of property, and married women could not own property independent of their husbands - while adult women who were not married, could.

By 1807, New Jersey’s election laws had been clarified to reflect the original understanding - that women were not meant to vote. That right had been taken away from them.

The lesson? No right is guaranteed to any of us, unless we speak powerfully in its defense.

Text Posted: Famous American Trials
Length (Words): 10,122

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom