_{We're starting Nonfiction Month a little early to help you get a jump on your writing!}

Editorials are generally written to express an opinion or give voice to a reaction about a current, general concern. Most editorials, it should be noted, are written to persuade; that is, they would like the reader to agree with their assessment and point of view. However, not all editorials take sides on an issue; some are simply there to inform the reader, promote an event or cause, or entertain.



How, then, can we tell the difference between an editorial and a rant?


The answer to this question lies in the foundation of good editorial writing. I'll be the first person to say that rants, especially on the internet, are often entertaining. I'll even admit that some can be persuasive or informative or can promote a particular cause. In fact, I am guilty of following a few blogs and journals just for the pure fun of listening to people bitch, moan, and gripe about their lives. But there is more to writing an editorial than a good laugh or a powerful emotional punch.


Know Your Topic (and Your Opinion)


The first rule of editorial writing is to know your topic and understand, fully, your opinion. Like any effective informative or persuasive piece, or even like anything worthy of entertainment or promotion, an editorial must start with a specific, defined topic; in many cases, it should also start with your refined and researched opinion on that same topic. Unlike some rants, which "go off" about any number of topics and address any number of opinions in one short passage, editorials are focused and pointed. They do not waste people's time with unnecessary drivel or surface complaints about a wide variety of topics.

When choosing a topic, try to pick something that can reach a broad audience. Personal rants are often named such because the topics they discuss have very little application outside of a small sphere of people and experiences; editorials, on the other hand, generally deal with issues that effect a large and diverse group of people.


Learn to Incorporate Facts


There are many different types of facts, and while I am not one to discount the worth of personal experience, it's important for the editorial writer to understand that one's personal experiences can only take the reader so far. In rants, it's okay to generalize and base all of your opinions on a personal situation or your experience in that situation but, in editorials, a person needs some real, hard, outside-source facts to back that experience up. Indeed, as Lisa Zocco states on her blog: "A great editorial starts with research and lots of it." This also goes back to knowing your topic.

In a rant, many people will take a topic they have only a passing knowledge of and spout off about the injustices and ridiculous nature of the subject. This happens quite frequently on the internet, with the most recent example being all those journal rants about the Mature Content Filter, the rants about the Copyright Law, and even the rants popping up about censorship and the clarified Pornography and Literature policy on dA. Take any social issue, from the Red Cross getting sued to gay marriage to an African-American as a presidential candidate, and you will find uninformed, misinformed, half-informed, and "I watch the news so I must be an expert" rants anywhere you'd like to look on these fine internets--and on both sides of every issue, too.

However, it's important to understand that editorials are rarely uninformed, misinformed, or riddled with half-truths and semi-knowledge. This does not mean that you have to agree with the opinion put forth, but it does mean that you should recognize the person giving that opinion has done her homework. The editorial writer knows her stuff and really believes that the research she's done has led her to the given conclusion. In the interest of journalistic integrity, it's important to note that most journalists adhere to standards of truthfulness, accuracy, fairness, and public accountability and, in many cases, these same journalists like to balance what they are reporting on or editorializing about with a true desire to limit the amount of harm done to those mentioned or cited in their article. In other words, where rants can manipulate facts with the intention to harm, editorials often cite facts with the intention to persuade and limit harm.

Data and facts are the cornerstone of good editorial writing. If you cannot back up your opinion with facts, then you are doing little more than ranting at an audience and hoping an emotional or entertaining appeal will be enough to convince them of your cause. While you may be successful, this doesn't mean you've written a respectable editorial.


Avoid Hyperbole and Over-emotional Appeals


Hyperbole, or exaggeration for an intended effect, is one of the most widely-used examples of figurative language found in rants. That's not to say it is not used in respected editorials, but one should recognize that hyperbole in editorials is used sparingly, for a specific effect, and is often hyper-aware of itself; that is, the writer knows the example is exaggerated and, many times, the example is given tongue-in-cheek. Rants, on the other hand, make full and lengthy use of hyperbole, exaggerating at (what seems like) every opportunity, and very rarely will the writer acknowledged that this is exaggeration for effect. Instead, many rant writers will stand by the truthfulness and accuracy of their exaggerated examples and claim that those speaking out against them are simply haters.

Similarly, emotional appeals have a limited use in editorial writing. Sure, the editorial writer wants to hit an emotional core and write for an intended emotional effect, but the use of emotion must be balanced and measured with facts if the editorial is going to be successful. Indeed, it's often the case that very strong emotional appeals--such as writing from anger or rampant disgust and letting that shine through--can turn off potential readers and limit the editorial's effectiveness.

Rants, on the other hand, make grand and volatile use of emotional appeals. These are rarely written from a calm or rational perspective and often focus on the anger, fear, or equally-strong emotion of the writer. Indeed, many rants can be viewed as an emotional outpouring and, while effective for some audiences, more sophisticated readers will see right through such emotional vomit and either disregard the entire rant, ask for more informative facts and examples, or excite a similar emotional response--usually the opposite of the writer's intended effect--and attack the rant writer on a personal and a ' professional' level. Editorials often inspire other editorials, sure--but these "arguments" are generally made from an informed, rational, clear and factual perspective. You will very rarely see respected editors use ad hominem attacks against other editors, after all.


Look at Both Sides


This, too, goes back to knowing your topic. In order to write effectively about an issue, you should understand where people are coming from on all sides of that issue. Writing an editorial that only looks at your opinion and the facts that support it will open you up to a very limited audience: namely those who agreed with you before they even began reading. Editorials, while surely concerned with a somewhat limited audience, still want other people with different opinions to read, understand, challenge, respond--and even agree--with what's being said. That can't happen if the editorial writer doesn't show some knowledge and respect for the other side. Of course, this doesn't eliminate the use of quick-witted and well-placed "jabs" at the other side, but the good editorial writer knows to use these with care and to keep them to an absolute minimum.

Rant writers, on the other hand, are rarely concerned with the "other side"--unless it's to bash them, insult them, or mock them. In fact, rants rarely even acknowledge that there might be another side and, instead, simply discuss those concerns immediate to the rant writer and the rant writer's friends. Unlike an editorial, a rant writer is usually writing for a very focused and limited audience and, many times, the intended audience is those who already agree with the rant writer's position. Indeed, many rants are looking for agreement--blind or otherwise--and dismiss a challenge to their point of view.


Keep it Interesting


The beauty of editorial writing, similar to that of the feature news article, is that the writing need not be the cut-and-dry, bare bones facts reporting that one might find in a regular news article. No, the editorial is supposed to be flashy, exciting--slightly more interesting than reading headlines and lead paragraphs that are so concerned with factual, accurate reporting that they can hardly take the time and space to incorporate figurative or manipulated language into the story. One of the first "rules" of editorial writing is to keep it entertaining, and one of the best ways to entertain with language is to know how and when to manipulate it for effect. In this regard, editorial writing is not much different from other modes of effective writing.

However, it is important to note that editorial writing is still a form of formal writing. In this sense, editorials need to be written to an acceptable standard and mastery of common conventions (spelling, punctuation, grammar, capitalization) is always an expectation. That means heavy revision and proofreading are necessary for editorials and should never be neglected.

This, too, represents a difference in editorials versus rants. Rants are seldom written in formal language, often opting for the informal take on things and sometimes even neglecting to proofread the work to check for common errors. And while this is acceptable for a limited, informal audience, such negligence in regards to writing and style will not be excused in a respectable editorial. This is also why we encourage deviants to keep rants to their journals and avoid submitting them as deviations. If you are submitting a deviation as an editorial, it must be proofread to meet editorial writing (formal writing) expectations.



Now what?


Well, now it's time to put your editorial skills to the test! Do you think you have what it takes to write a real editorial? Using the guidelines above, choose a topic current to your country and write an editorial expressing your opinion on that topic. Remember, editorials generally deal with topics that have a wide appeal and intended audience, so any current social, political, or economic issues would be a perfect place (though not the only place) to start. You can also write about issues relative to your art medium, whether it be literature, writing, education, painting, photography, etc.


Once you have written your editorial, please submit it to Prose---> Nonfiction---> Editorial, and then send a NOTE entitled "ED" to ^GeneratingHype with a link to the actual deviation. Please try to have all of your editorials sent on or before 28 July 2008. Limit: 2,500 words.


All editorials will be posted once received, and certain editorials will be chosen for a feature in the Poetry and Prose Forum, where a discussion will take place regarding the topic and the elements used to write the effective editorial. With that in mind, topics dealing with writing or literature would be most welcomed!



Important Note

Rants are welcome on dA, but they belong in your journal or in Scraps. In fact, personal rants or deviations submitted to the Editorial Gallery that do not meet the above guidelines will be moved to Scraps (or another category if something is more appropriate). Please keep that in mind when submitting your deviations.