An opinion article is an argumentative journalistic text that explores a topic of interest to public opinion, based on the author’s personal considerations.
It is a personal text and, unlike an editorial, it is always signed by its author, who uses arguments and evaluations to support his opinion on a certain topic.
These articles seek to awaken in their readers a critical feeling around the subject, highlighting aspects and considerations to limit the debate to their point of view. For this they usually use narratives , comparisons and even a certain degree of poetic writing .
Opinion articles tend to reinforce the editorial line of the medium in which they are published. They constitute one of the most read sections of a journalistic publication since personalities from the political, cultural or media world are usually summoned to share their point of view and opinion.
- See also: News and report
Structure of the opinion piece
The traditional structure of an opinion piece includes:
- An exposition of motives or reasons , with which you illustrate your approach to the subject and modulate the reader’s approach to your point of view.
- A closing where it offers the conclusions to convince the reader, and that turn an opinion article into an argumentative text .
Examples of opinion pieces
- “The fringes of the Civil War continue to count” by José Andrés Rojo.
Published in the newspaper El País in Spain, on November 21, 2016.
The desire to know what happened brings together people of very different ideologies
It will not change the world if at this point we find out that there were a few savvy members of the Francoist side who crossed the Manzanares River a few days before the date that historians have considered good until now, and that they even reached Argüelles, where there were skirmishes with the republican forces. What has been explained, what is more or less fixed by the scholars of the Civil War, is that the troops of the rebel military only managed to cross the river after having conquered the Casa de Campo, and that they only did so on the 15th. November 1936, a few months after the infamous July coup. It didn’t do them much good. Madrid managed to resist, and the war dragged on.
But it turns out that there are a few papers that show that there was a previous assault, as this newspaper reported yesterday in its Culture pages. An assault that did not go very far and that did not manage to establish a solid position, as happened later when the Francoist forces arrived at the University City and were entrenched there until the end of the war. Is this relevant and will it change the story about the battle of Madrid? Surely not, unless other evidence of greater weight appears, but what really matters is the fact of going back to the documents, of continuing to tirelessly pull on the fringes, of continuing to explore. The past is always a vast unknown territory, and many treat it as one who plays a complex score by ear.
What these papers surely show is that, both in peace and in war, the truth is often hidden: because it is not convenient, because it complicates things, because it gives a different image from the one we want to project. The Republicans did not do well to know that the Francoists had come so far so soon, very shortly after starting that offensive on the capital that they intended to be the definitive one. And the Francoists were annoyed that (those ruffles) had forced them to withdraw. It was a blaze, common in a war; as it went off, no one paid any greater interest.
Except for those few who keep digging, and who keep asking, and who tirelessly pursue all the clues so that the story of what happened better and better fits what really happened in those fateful (and chaotic) days. Many of these indefatigable onlookers are part of the Madrid Front Study Group (Gefrema).
It is worth noting that what matters in this group is the desire to know what happened, and to investigate and delve into everything that remains to be discovered and explained. Some come from families that were in the war with the rebels and others are descendants of the defenders of the Republic or of those who went mad to make the revolution. Knowing the brothers beyond their respective ideologies and, well, it’s a smart way to go back to the past. Not to settle pending accounts: to know him better.
- “The weight of uncertainties” by Gustavo Roosen.
Published in the newspaper El Nacional de Venezuela, on November 20, 2016.
Colombia and the plebiscite on the peace agreement, England and the decision to leave the European Union, the United States and the presidential election are just three cases in which the surprise has overcome the presumption, but they are also, and very especially, three demonstrations of the growing distance between political logic and the people, between the drawing of the polls and the picture of the real and deep perceptions and aspirations of society. The result of this gap, fueled by the forgetfulness or ignorance of the people, is none other than the emergence of mistrust, the abandonment of citizen responsibilities in political action and the flourishing of very varied forms of anarchy and demagoguery.
Few things are possibly more dangerous to freedom and democracy than the loss of confidence in politicians, the feeling of people not being understood or even being deceived by those who aspire to represent or lead them. In Venezuela, in particular, some feel that the proposals do not respond to their aspirations as a country; others, that attention has been focused on the political game to the detriment of the true interests of the population. In any case, doubts grow more than certainties.
As a result of the first agreements between the government and the representatives of the opposition organized in the Mesa de la Unidad, these sentiments have gained unexpected strength. Despite the attempt to explain the strategy and the intentions, it is perceived that the political representation of the opposition does not express with the force that it should the seriousness of the situation and the urgency of the solutions; that it does not achieve the political objectives that it proposes and proposes; that declares deadlines and goals that it cannot sustain; that wastes its political capital and popular support; that you are not doing what you should to keep up your enthusiasm; that there is a discourse towards the interior of the dialogue tables and another for the street; that explanations about tone and strategy don’t sound convincing enough. People understand that it is negotiated, but he wants to see progress. People expect the points on the table to be resolved, not because they think they are unique, but because they perceive them as immediate, as emergency.
The result of this loss of confidence begins to accelerate a process in which the wrinkle of hope can no longer be drawn. Whoever set limits for his plan B, now feels that he can not continue to postpone it. Hence the increase in emigration. Hence, for example, the growing number of Venezuelan doctors taking tests in Chile to work in the public network in that country. Last year there were 338, this year there are already 847. And like these doctors, thousands of other professionals and entrepreneurs who cancel their dream of opportunities in the country to seek them abroad. The bewilderment does not allow many to run the wrinkle further. There comes a time when the real reasons, those of the economy and the personal ones, do not give for more. Prolonging the situation exhausts people’s hope. And in front of that,
The exercise of politics has today more than ever the imperative to sharpen the perception of people, their motivations, their aspirations, about what is most immediate and visible but especially about what is profound, what is said and what is kept silent, what it is declared in public and what is held in private, what is discovered in front of others and what is kept in the internal forum. Correctly interpreting people, understanding their aspirations, their motivations, their fears, their expectations is, therefore, the only way to reach society and to be understood by it. Luis Ugalde has said it: “Democrats need to inform and listen to the people so that the pains and hopes of the population are at the head and at the heart of the negotiations.” If what is intended is to nurture trust and hope,
