In 1970, the Op-Ed was effectively born. The New York Times created an opinion page, opposite the editorial page (hence Op-Ed) with the idea of giving its readers an alternative view from experts and prominent public figures to the accepted orthodoxy. This 800-word essay became the ultimate status symbol, both for the authors and for the publication; and almost the entire media world followed suit. Fast-forward half a century, and if not completely dead, the Op-Ed is arguably on life support.
The reasons for this are many. The huge challenges facing traditional print media are, of course, a major factor. As algorithms increasingly determine what content gets prioritised, revenue has plummeted, putting growing pressure on newsrooms and fundamentally changing the way journalism is produced and consumed. Subscription models ring-fence content behind paywalls, so how many people will read your finely crafted argument anyway?
The algorithmic shift
The Op-Ed as we know it was specifically designed for reflective, considered reading. Most modern media consumption, for better or worse, is no longer like that. There is information overload – not to be confused with real qualitative news. Nevertheless, there is an overwhelming amount of content out there, all competing for our attention (and our clicks) on multiple platforms and devices, and in multiple formats. An Op-Ed published 48 hours after a major development risks arriving after the debate has already moved on.
The Brussels evolution
In Brussels, the Op-Ed has evolved into a very particular beast. Most Op-Eds you might come across are tools of the lobbying trade and extremely good revenue generators for the bubble media, as they are “paid content”, written by communications professionals or in-house PR teams. Of course, there are exceptions, and some media are now no longer accepting Op-Eds at all. But in general, they are essentially the polar opposite of the original concept, when the publication would pay the author a nominal fee for their opinion. And this specific nature of the Brussels Op-Ed makes it, for many, an especially endangered species.
So, what’s next?
The irony is, of course, that we are bombarded with more opinion each day than ever before, and we seem to want it. But these opinions are available everywhere, and mostly for free, not always of great quality, but delivered at the pace of modern digital communications, one after another, making them immediate and relevant in the moment. Whether you agree with it or not, the opinion is truly varied. Yet the Op-Ed can still be – is still – and in some cases is – a very useful way of sharing a bold point of view, but it increasingly needs to stand apart from the white noise of general opinion, and be truly different, incisive, informative, contextual and relevant to news agendas. In addition, the perspective should be high quality and ideally give a true expert opinion.
In essence, survival means returning to what the Op-Ed was meant to do all along: challenge your thinking, introduce arguments you had not encountered or considered, and make you see an issue differently. Because that is when an Op-Ed earns its place in the conversation. And there is little point in crafting a finely honed argument if it never reaches the people who need to read it.
Philip Herd, Senior Adviser - Media